Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Allegiant Suspending FNL Flights?  
User currently offlinemark8762 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 133 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3038 times:

I have heard G4 is dropping service to FNL. Anyone can confirm this? Is it temporary or permanent?

Rumor I have heard is the the pilots don't like it there due to airspace not being controlled.

Any info is appreciated.

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25691 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3029 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mark8762 (Thread starter):
I have heard G4 is dropping service to FNL. Anyone can confirm this? Is it temporary or permanent?

It's in the press:

http://www.reporterherald.com/news/l...giant-end-service-loveland-airport

"Allegiant to end service to Loveland airport"

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3847 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2969 times:

The level of shock the airport is emitting seems fishy. Anyone out there, maybe in that area, that can take a more educated stab at this?

User currently onlinemtnwest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2485 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2491 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It seems odd to me that G4 would eliminate a route that they fly 5x/week. That to me would indicate that it was popular enough for them and to just ax it 100% instead of cutting frequency makes it a 'non-public' reason they are quitting. Maybe they raised landing fees $.01/lb lol


"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently onlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5594 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2440 times:

It's certainly not unheard for G4 to pull out of stations. This summer we seem to be seeing many instances of them going BACK to formerly-shuttered cities so the cycle seems to be continuing... No airport likes to see this happen but if it's true, there's probably an economic reason behind it -- Allegiant tends to like to operate profitable routes and I'd take a wild guess that FNL isn't right now.

The tower-less status of the airport is mentioned and I would sure think Allegiant would consider that to be a concern. Or maybe it's simply the fact that there are so many options available at DEN, including Spirit now, that pax interest at FNL is not what it used to be or needs to be...

It might be time for that old axiom to come to life in Loveland: "build a tower and they will come!"  

bb


User currently offlineROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 803 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

I doubt it has anything to do with the tower or lack thereof. G4 and NK operate under similar principles. If the route isn't profitable, it goes away.

User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2275 times:

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 5):
NK operate under similar principles

If by this, you mean they operate into uncontrolled airfields, where does NK fly under these conditions?


User currently offlineROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 803 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2244 times:

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 6):
If by this, you mean they operate into uncontrolled airfields, where does NK fly under these conditions?

That wasn't what I was referring to. But to answer your question, yes, NK does fly to non-towered airports. An example would be PBG.


User currently onlinemtnwest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2485 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2234 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I agree. I think tower issue was an issue they picked as plausible that they could pass off to press and public. I'll say it again, how many airports does G4 operate 5x/week to one destination, then just to quit cold-turkey? They must think people are rubes. Oh well, at least they are starting up service to my hometown! (BOI). But I do not forsee them sticking thru next spring.


"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2109 times:

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 7):

Oh, sorry I must have misread that.

P.S., I never knew that PBG was uncontrolled.


User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4433 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2041 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting mariner (Reply 1):

http://www.reporterherald.com/news/l...rport

Wow, I am quite surprised to see this disappear as well. FNL was one of the early routes out of LAS, and has been operating since 2003. The tower issue seems a little crazy, especially considering the following statement out of Mariner's article: Allegiant's president, Andrew Levy, has said in recent interviews with the Reporter-Herald that Fort Collins-Loveland was one of the air carrier's most successful markets. So either FNL really made them mad and it's a cover up, or the teamsters are behind the no tower issue but don't want to admit it.


User currently onlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2766 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2005 times:

Well......so my thoughts that FNL could possibly one day become a viable second airport in the Denver area have now somewhat fizzled here.

The airport/area probably would be best to invest in a tower. The population in this area is growing, and tech industries are expanding here as well. The airport has a catchment area of the northernmost suburbs of the Denver area, Boulder, Fort Collins, Greeley, other smaller but growing areas in the region, as well as possibly the southern-most of Wyoming, including Cheyenne and Laramie - and for those Wyomingites, certainly saving some 60 some miles driving to DEN. This extended area could include up to (probably pushing) about a half a million residents.

IIRC, didn't FNL also receive an SCASD grant in 2011? Maybe it would have been better to seek funds for a tower?

And even though G4 only served AZA a couple of times a week from here, I wonder if first F9, and then NK, soon having DEN-AZA service affected G4's thinking here in any way?

Oh well........ sad when a community losses scheduled commercial air service..... even more so when it seemed that the area is growing and possibly could have supported more.


 


User currently onlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5594 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1973 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 11):
...sad when a community losses scheduled commercial air service..... even more so when it seemed that the area is growing and possibly could have supported more.
Quoting point2point (Reply 11):
The airport/area probably would be best to invest in a tower.

I agree on all counts. Certainly if FNL ever has ideas/hopes of more air service (due to their great location in a growing region) a tower would be necessary. If they do get one built, G4 would possibly return in a couple of years -- when the area is even larger with more businesses and residents.

bb


User currently offlinemcg From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

There seems to be a great deal of mystery as to why Allegiant pulled out. See Denver Post:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...blasts-allegiant-report?source=rss

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/.../loveland-runway-ready-new-carrier

It does seem a little odd, Allegiant doesn't really say that the routes haven't performed well, which is the typical reasoning that air service ends. I wonder if there is an opportunity here for F9, Mariner??  


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25691 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1817 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mcg (Reply 13):
I wonder if there is an opportunity here for F9, Mariner??  

I;ve been wondering about that. It seems there is a market and it would be easy enough to do - simply switch the plane that was going to do DRO-LAS to FNL-LAS

But Frontier's experience with DRO-LAS may have made them wary of it - although Fort Collins has a bigger population. I dunno. I'm guessing - and it's only a wild guess - that the problem for Allegiant was yield, and I'm not sure Frontier can improve that.

mariner

[Edited 2012-08-31 13:32:31]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineGentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3256 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1786 times:

As a WAG goes with FNL significant military population. Possibly G4 bid for a GSA city pair award and did not receive it and opted to leave the market. The awards were published about a month ago. I've seen it before.


Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3156 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1758 times:

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 15):
Possibly G4 bid for a GSA city pair award and did not receive it and opted to leave the market.

Does G4 actually qualify as an option under GSA city pairs?? I would have thought more regular service would be required, though in this case they did fly 5 of 7 days.

-Rampart


User currently offlineGentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3256 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1703 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 16):

About two years ago I asked the GSA this very question. The GSA wrote back; air carriers who offer less than daily service would not normally be awarded a route. I thought once daily service offered M-F constitutes daily under the confines of a business week. Most everything else in government seems to follow the M-F rule. There seems to be some uncertainty if the service also has to be flown on Saturdays and Sundays to meet the once daily requirement.

My take is if they had a carrier who flew it seven days a week vs. one who flew it five days a week; they would award to seven day a week carrier. If they no interest from other carriers they would go with the five day a week service.

In certain markets there may be other exceptions which sway the award process such as a EAS market. I did check the FNL market and their are no awards.

I don't have a good grasp on G4 other than their niche to serve secondary and under served markets. I think I read something to the extent G4 consider themselves a travel company and not an airline which may also be a dis-qualifier.

If F9 ultimately decides to serve FNL. It would be a neat test market.



Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
User currently offlineLV From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 2007 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1686 times:

Quoting mcg (Reply 13):
I wonder if there is an opportunity here for F9, Mariner??

The thought crossed my mind that maybe F9 is planning on opening LAS-FNL or AZA-FNL (since it has been doing other point to point routes lately, particularly LAS-PUB comes to mind) and G4 got wind of it and said the heck with it.


User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3827 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1643 times:

There have been a lot of potential reasons here (lack of a tower, potential F9 entry, low profitability) for Allegiant abruptly exiting FNL, especially with LAS at 5x/week. But here's some more that I thought of:

-Maybe there was a change of management at FNL where G4 felt uncomfortable?
-Maybe FNL jacked up their terminal and landing fees? (G4 originally left LAN when they tried messing around with those)
-Maybe the ground handler that handles G4 at FNL decided to stop operations there?
-Maybe the ground handler that handles G4 at FNL was playing hardball with rates?
-Maybe there are fuel supplier problems at FNL? (This was cited as a reason why G4 left ORH)

Still, those Mad Dogs from LAS and AZA have to go somewhere. With the way that G4 has been making announcements lately, I think those birds will find new cities in no time...



"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlinecrj900lr From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 389 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1511 times:

G4 is very cheap when it comes to money. If an airport, ground handler, or fueler raises the fees a little they close up shop. Any airport that G4 serves should not be surprized to see them there one day and gone the next. Yes they provide decent service but their long-term commitment to any city is questionable.

User currently offlineGentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3256 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1416 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 11):
IIRC, didn't FNL also receive an SCASD grant in 2011? Maybe it would have been better to seek funds for a tower?

I know SCASD dollars will cover a lot of things including terminal renovations and runway repaving but I'm not sure a ATC tower would qualify. I suspect a tower which would cost millions to build and equip would come from a different pot of DOT/FAA AIR21 federal construction dollars. The potential cost over-run beyond any SCASD grant award would or should scare any airport manager.



Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
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...
Allegiant Announcing New Flights Wed At PSC, IDA posted Tue Apr 6 2010 18:15:26 by FATFlyer
Venezuela Starts Suspending Colombian Flights posted Thu Sep 10 2009 16:32:53 by RCS763AV
Allegiant Suspending HGR Mid August Till November? posted Fri May 29 2009 06:36:05 by JBAirwaysFan
Allegiant Adding Youngstown Flights, Sort Of.. posted Wed Oct 15 2008 17:27:24 by YNGguins
Article - Canadians Pack Allegiant GFK-LAS Flights posted Tue Sep 30 2008 11:08:58 by FATFlyer
Allegiant Officially Announces Flights From ILM posted Thu Feb 14 2008 09:22:43 by ERAUgrad02
TRI Submits Proposal To Allegiant For SFB Flights posted Sat Feb 24 2007 18:03:40 by FATFlyer
Allegiant Suspending ABI Service posted Thu Jan 11 2007 16:55:59 by Ssides
Allegiant Adds Seasonal Flights posted Thu Dec 14 2006 23:34:27 by KarlB737
Allegiant Adding Holiday Flights At ABE, BLV, SWF posted Wed Aug 23 2006 03:28:38 by FATFlyer