slcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3935 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10094 times:
Plus i mean theres alot of people who FLL is closer and easier to use. Much like EWR it has its fans there is alot of highway traffic in the area so FLL has lots of fans. Its not purely a fees thing there would be a large market for FLL regardless of fees
boslax From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9929 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 4): I'm sure it already loses lots of money for b6 and vx
If that was the case, why would UA be interested? FLL is one of the few markets from SFO where VX enjoys a fare premium (35%) over the other airlines. Could well be B6 and VX are operating profitably and UA wants to join the party. There are 114 PDEW's that are using connecting services in the SFO-FLL market - maybe UA sees the opportunity to capture some of that traffic.
hiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9907 times:
B6 and VX do it with airbus now so no big deal I would think. and unlike MIA FLL is basically right on top of North/South I95 and East/West I595 going across the state west as I75. You can see your cruise ship from the airport unlike a lot of other ports making it very convenient. Only one runway currently while the skijump one is built on the south side is one drawback...other being Customs is on the south side and not a seamless transfer. UA is in the newest terminal with great access to rental cars and parking and is the first one coming into the airport.
perhaps UA thinks VX is vulnerable and has started to make plans on a post amr/us structure down at MIA....perhaps...
mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33673 posts, RR: 71
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9871 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 1): MIA must have super high fees if airlines keep chosing FLL over MIA, SFO-MIA is a former UA route. SFO-FLL is an entirely new route, I'm guessing a 738.
Well, yes, MIA's fees are high. That's not a secret. Landing fees were lowered this year, though.
But MIA is the nation's fastest growing airport - so to say airlines "keep chosing FLL over MIA" is a lie. They don't. Domestic airlines generally do; international airlines don't.
But FLL's has so many improvement programs going on right now, it's enplanement costs are set to triple and get into dangerously high territory for a low-fare mecca. MIA can support it's high enplanement costs - just like SEA, JFK, YYZ, etc.; FLL can't. It's going to be in the same club as SMF, IND and ONT.
As for this route, it probably has little to do with costs. Newark's newest airline doesn't fly to Miami; and United Express carrier Silver Airways is hubbed in FLL, not MIA.
AAflyguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9631 times:
So MIA being deemed as the fastest growing airport in the US is based on % increase in passengers, correct? I mean, ATL is growing by 3.5% this year, which equates to 2.5 million additional passengers. Just wondering how that compares @ MIA in terms of raw numbers. ATL's growth percentage is relatively low but on a huge base so the actual passenger equivalent is a big number. They're likely to end the year up 3 million passengers over 2011.
I'm going to SoFla in Feb and am looking at MIA vs FLL. Even though I am destined for MIA, I am likely to fly into FLL as the fare is more than $200 cheaper. That's a significant difference, at least to me, for a domestic trip.
And, what @ FLL is leading to the projected skyrocketing operating costs there? Isn't the runway project primarily funded via FAA? If so, that's not something the airlines are going to eat. Is there a massive CIP list over the next 5-years which will drive up the CPE for carriers operating there? FLL is very unlike SMF/IND/ONT in that it is much busier than any of those three..I'd go so far as to say its total pax traffic is rougly the total of those three airports combined. Also, I doubt MIA or PBI are in a position to tackle a huge surge in traffic by airlines looking to defect from FLL. Also, if MIA's costs are already high, then there will be no real incentive for airlines to shift capacity there. FLL may be a "low cost" mecca, but I'm certain the airlines are staying very close to any plans the Airport has which will significantly increase their costs. Also, the additional runway capacity will allow for increased aircraft operations and the ability to add new flights. The more service there is by each carrier, the less of an impact increasing costs have as they're spread across a larger passenger base.
Also, WN, B6, and NK all operate in some high cost airports around the U.S. That doesn't, in any way, justify FLL's costs going however high they are projected to, just to say that this isn't something which is foreign to these three carriers.
boeing773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 457 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9051 times:
Quoting mah4546 (Reply 8): t's going to be in the same club as SMF, IND and ONT.
I don't believe any of those airports are equal to what FLL is. Just because MIA is right now the road from FLL doesn't mean they fight for the same market. MIA is more of an international airport, with an AA hub. It also serves purely MIA and markets south and slightly north of it.
Compared to FLL where their market is Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, Pompano Beach, Boca Raton and West Palm Beach. They also have a large cruise liner feeder market.
Now compared to SMF, IND, ONT they serve secondary markets. Besides ONT, but the whole LAX basin market is kind of flooded with the four other airport.
So no, FLL is not going to become a secondary market like the rest of those airports when the costs rise. It can hold it's own against MIA.
kgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4409 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8957 times:
Quoting CoachClass (Reply 14): They better have IFE/AVOD with Direct TV and a good flight schedule if they want to compete with Virgin America and jetBlue.
Bring a Kindle and an MP3 too since right now -- with strong winter headwinds -- flights from the Atlantic Ocean to San Francisco are going over six hours. Boston -- at 6h 50m -- seems to be the longest.
boslax From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8914 times:
Quoting N782NC (Reply 16): just have to ask... Is American's operation so fortified in MIA that United couldn't take a shot there instead of FLL?
American is flying 3 daily roundtrips in the SFO-MIA market with an average annual load factor of 90%, which means there's probably some spill occurring. 40% of AA's on-board passengers are local, with the remaining 60% more than likely connecting beyond MIA (some traffic may be connecting to oneworld carriers at SFO). So if UA entered the market, they would compete head-to-head for the local traffic with AA, while each carrier would have a distinct pool of traffic beyond their respective hubs - (UA beyond SFO, AA beyond MIA). 57% of the local SFO-MIA market originates in SFO - very very slight advantage to UA. To compete with AA, I believe UA would need to offer more than one daily roundtrip. At 11.5 block hours, we're talking about one aircraft per roundtrip. Might be too much to ask.