Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
G4 Will Suspend SGF-LAX Mid-January  
User currently offline727tiger From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 268 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 918 times:

G4 will be suspending its service from SGF to LAX in mid-January, citing operational issues at LAX. Here's a link to the SGF blog regarding this news:

http://www.flyspringfield.com/blog/

For our perspective in SW Missouri, G4's LAX flights have been successful. Hopefully, G4 can find a way to return that service to SGF in the future.

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinemtnwest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2458 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 918 times:

That's too bad. I did that route once and it was full. But I din't see the pax the type to buy into all the extras G4 is famous for so maybe this is an ideal time to use the 'operational issue' reasoning to axe it.
They appear to be a bit slow on knowing how the gate issue at LAX will affect them. It doesn't seem like they know what to do there.
Hopefully it will be ressurrected in the summer.



"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently offlineMLI717fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 918 times:

Didn't G4 lose their gate space at LAX? I thought that's why they suspended the majority of other LAX routes. This is probably more of the same. Or they aren't fully able to utilize their fleet out of LAX due to gate space and they decided to transfer the aircraft to another focus city.

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25202 posts, RR: 48
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 918 times:

G4 took the cheap path and instead of getting its own leasehold home opted to contract out.
It had been using Delta, but DL had some schedule changes which crimped its ability to handle G4 on the side.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4396 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 918 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
G4 took the cheap path and instead of getting its own leasehold home opted to contract out.
It had been using Delta, but DL had some schedule changes which crimped its ability to handle G4 on the side.

It seems gates in general are hard to come by in LAX. WN has been pretty well maxed out for gates as well for quite a long time now in LAX. It's too bad ONT has gotten expensive and isn't as preferred as that would be perfect for G4 - uncongested and plenty of gate space.



Next flights: WN DSM-LAS-PHX, US PHX-SJD. Return: US SJD-PHX, WN PHX-MDW-DSM
User currently onlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5412 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 918 times:

I follow this story of the cuts by G4 at LAX with some interest. From my persepective, back a couple of years ago before Allegiant opened their ops at LAX, there were discussions (and even a couple of rumors?) about other cities in SoCal that were being looked at as bases for the carrier. SAN was one of the candidates.

I wonder if SAN might be re-visited now as certainly the next largest market behind the greater LA basin in SoCal? Judging be the lack of much of anything currently offered here by G4 -- BLI service 2 or 3x weekly -- I have my doubts.

I certainly know that SAN is NOT LA but I also find it hard to believe that Allegiant couldn't try a few routes and see what happens... It might make up somewhat for their disappearing act slowly taking place 100 miles to the north!

bb


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25202 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 918 times:

Quoting iowaman (Reply 4):
It seems gates in general are hard to come by in LAX.

G4 can move its ops to T-2 or T-3 today, but would need to sign a leasehold and become a regular tenant, not a month to month vagabond.

Quoting iowaman (Reply 4):
WN has been pretty well maxed out for gates as well for quite a long time now in LAX.

WN has been hemmed in because US is in T-1 also and WN's unwillingness to help fund moves for other carriers.

LAWA on atleast two occasions came up with multi carrier moves that would open up T-1 for WN, but it came down to compensating the airlines being moved and helping pay for new facilities. Someone had to foot the bill...

Quoting iowaman (Reply 4):
It's too bad ONT has gotten expensive and isn't as preferred as that would be perfect for G4 - uncongested and plenty of gate space.

ONT is cheaper then LAX this year. So are places like BUR and LGB. And speaking of LGB, G4 was there first, and even managed to secure additional slots, but packed things up to focus on LAX.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 5):
I certainly know that SAN is NOT LA but I also find it hard to believe that Allegiant couldn't try a few routes and see what happens...

G4's model is to sell a destination. It has Vegas, Orlando, sunny Phoenix, Hawaii now, and Los Angeles.

While SAN is a great destination on its own, I'm not sure it has the broad nationwide appeal as a destination such as LA has. G4 found they even had poor success trying to the region via LGB gateway.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinedlramp4life From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 918 times:

So that leaves AZA,LAS,SFB,and PIE out of SGF now... Still a pretty good operation I must say


PHX Ramp, hottest place on earth
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3741 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 918 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
WN has been hemmed in because US is in T-1 also and WN's unwillingness to help fund moves for other carriers.

I thought it was the other way around, where WN wanted US to move out of T1 and offered to pay, but US refused numerous times.



Primary Airport: FWA/Alternate Airport: DTW/Not employed by the FWACAA or their partners
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...
Will NZ Resume LAX-SYD? posted Mon Apr 16 2012 01:32:58 by United Airline
Will Horizon Announce LAX-Prescott Soon? posted Sun Mar 30 2008 16:07:02 by Jmc1975
Next SQ A380 In Mid-January posted Mon Jan 7 2008 01:45:37 by Flying-Tiger
Non-Reving SXM Mid January posted Thu Dec 27 2007 19:21:49 by Ebs757
Malaysia Al Will Buy New Planes In January posted Sun Nov 18 2007 00:38:57 by FCKC
A380 F-WXXL Will Visit DownUnder In Mid June... posted Fri May 4 2007 06:02:12 by EK413
When Will We See LAX-GRU Again? posted Thu Jan 25 2007 07:23:57 by LAXdude1023
E190 @ PVD For Training, Mid January posted Sat Dec 16 2006 19:58:59 by Gift4tbone
Who Will Take Over LAX-KIX? posted Fri May 12 2006 01:34:51 by UALAX
Independence Air Will Not Shut Down In January posted Thu Dec 15 2005 03:27:22 by Malaysia