qwerty
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2001 7:31 am

Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:46 am

 
wjcandee
Posts: 5189
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:48 am

I would have said this in just two words, but the system won't let me, so...

Flag stop?
 
BlueElephant
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:16 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:23 am

They have a New 4th Plane set to start service today...I believe it has something to do with that. Maybe a Repositioning Flight?...


Not really sure...but odd none the less.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:30 am

My guess: some schedule/plane issues, so they merged the CMH-RIC and CMH-GSO flights into one, since the loads on both routes probably are low, and they could combine both into one plane.
a.
 
qwerty
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2001 7:31 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:32 am

That makes mucho sense. I thought they only had three. I saw the Oakland flight today, and thinking only three planes doubly wondered why they would be moving a plane between a city pair that did include CMH.

I guess I still wonder a bit. Perhaps they have intentions to do that pair and are running a proving flight. Who knows with these guys, my jury is still out.
 
gregarious119
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:40 am

Proving run? Is that one of the routes we found in the flight status system a few weeks ago?
 
gsoflyer
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat May 12, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:32 am

Loads must be low, But if you look at tickets for both cities, most are running into into the $100 to $150 range which points at 80% or higher loads, as reported in the local papers as well. In fact, the local media has been doing surprising segments on Skybus, including local talk radio, that have taken trips and reviewed the service. And local businesses have embraced them too.

So despite MAH4546 saying GSO and RIC are mistakes and the constant Skybus is making mistakes... give it up.

And I know MAH4546 and I have gotten into it before, I still say you are from Sweden. It says it in your profile. So why does someone from Sweden care so much about GSO and RIC, let alone Skybus despite living in Chicago or Miami.

My guess, Skybus is starting new routes and has been quoted in the papers are starting other point to point destinations.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:02 am

Quoting Gsoflyer (Reply 6):

And I know MAH4546 and I have gotten into it before, I still say you are from Sweden. It says it in your profile. So why does someone from Sweden care so much about GSO and RIC, let alone Skybus despite living in Chicago or Miami.

Never mind the fact I'm a US citizen that has lived here for 15+ years. The fact that I was born in Sweden is moot. Give it up.

I care about Skybus because I like to follow the airline industry closely, and I think Skybus is making big mistakes. I'm allowed my own opinion, like it or not, as are many airline industry analysts who are predicting Skybus' failure.

We'll see in a year to 18 months who is right. I doubt they are getting excellent loads to GSO and RIC flying to Columbus and not allowing connections, and I doubt the accuracy of a newspaper article whose sole source is a biased airline that is obviously not going to say otherwise. GSO-FLL and RIC-FLL could be winners (load-wise, at least), like CMH-FLL, which has reportedly been Skybus' best performing route (no surprise, it is the only one going to a large airport).

So far, early loads for Skybus are healthy, which is a good sign. Though I stand by my prediction that Skybus will be gone within two years. That's my opinion, I could easily be wrong.

Also, I realize you don't like why guess as to why the flight was operated like it or not, it is the most likely reason. They don't need a freaking prooving run on RIC-GSO. That is absolutely ridiculous, especially when they are running such a tight fleet. There were probably some delays somewhere, and they were able to combine both flights into one. It isn't a rare practice. jetBlue has combined Florida flights (i.e. JFK-TPA-FLL) when they are short on airplanes and can fit both flights onto one plane.

[Edited 2007-06-13 00:19:25]
a.
 
Evan767
Posts: 2198
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:34 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 7):
The fact that I was born in Sweden is moot. Give it up.

I was born in California. Lived there for one year. Moved to Virginia and lived here for 10 years now. Does that make me from California?

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 7):
RIC-FLL could be winners (load-wise, at least)

Obviously not because Delta Connection pulled out of there last year.
The proper term is "on final" not "on finals" bud...
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:47 am

Quoting Evan767 (Reply 8):
I was born in California. Lived there for one year. Moved to Virginia and lived here for 10 years now. Does that make me from California?

Yes, it does make you from California. But who cares? This has nothing to do with anything.

Quoting Evan767 (Reply 8):
Obviously not because Delta Connection pulled out of there last year.

What does that have to do with anything? American Eagle has been flying MIA-RIC successfully for three years. AirTran flies FLL-PHF year-round, successfully. Delta Connection was using high-cost RJs on a multitude of Florida-Southeast routes and it just was not a good idea. FLL-RIC was actually one of the most popular of DL's FLL-RJ routes, and was flown 3x daily and one of the last to be discontinued, along with FLL-GSO. The fact is that those RJs were not the best aircraft for the route. Skybus can do FLL-GSO and FLL-RIC successfully, and I would bet money they will be doing at least one of them by year's end.

Flying routes to Florida, Vegas, and Southern California from various mid-size cities is where the Skybus model has the best chance of success, not idiotic routes like CMH-GSO and CMH-PSM.

[Edited 2007-06-13 00:49:26]
a.
 
gsoflyer
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat May 12, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:55 am

Depends on your meaning of connection.

As was said in the newspapers and from callers on the radio, connecting with no checked luggage is easy and worth the money savings.

We'll see what the load numbers are at the end of the month.... I'm betting your wrong. People are coming from all over the place for these flights.
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5486
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:06 am

Skybus is not going to go over very well with business travelers.. that is just the way it is.. so Skybus needs to go after it's real markets.. vacation leisure and mid-range pax places that only require one frequencies..

From GSO alone, the opportunities are endless..

GSO-FLL/RSW/LAS/MSY/CUN <-- leisure
GSO-PVD/ISP/GYY/RNO/MYR <-- mid-range pax destinations

But that is just my opinion..

And btw.. Mark is an Ameri-Swed (IKEA is the BESTEST)... just means he got the best of 2 worlds.. so let's not be demogra-bashing in here..
Aiming High and going far..
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:19 am

I flew skybus today... CMH-GSO..arrived a little late at 6:05pm. We didn't stop in richmond. Not sure what this flight is.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
tbolt1
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:29 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:19 am

Quoting Qwerty (Thread starter):
Any ideas why?

Pilot crews getting checked out by the FAA....and that is the final answer
"You can be my wingman anytime."
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:23 am

Quoting Tbolt1 (Reply 13):
Pilot crews getting checked out by the FAA....and that is the final answer

Thanks for the answer, but what does that mean? Checked for what?
a.
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:30 am

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 12):
I flew skybus today... CMH-GSO..arrived a little late at 6:05pm. We didn't stop in richmond. Not sure what this flight is.

There was an FAA official jumpseating on my non-stop CMH-GSO flight this evening.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
tbolt1
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:29 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:30 am

I don't know what the checks were for....I only know the planes only had different sets of crew members on board as well as an FAA inspector. The flight went from CMH-RIC-GSO-CMH
At each stop they changed crews around.
So I don't know what they checks were for, but the crew swapping and FAA inspector are accurate.
"You can be my wingman anytime."
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:37 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 3):
My guess: some schedule/plane issues, so they merged the CMH-RIC and CMH-GSO flights into one, since the loads on both routes probably are low, and they could combine both into one plane.

I flew GSO-CMH on sunday night, and CMH-GSO this evening.. both flights were over 80% full. I would say over half the plane bought drinks and snacks.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:46 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 7):
Also, I realize you don't like why guess as to why the flight was operated like it or not

This is why A.net has gone down hill "I am guessing", or "I heard from my Mom's sister's ex-boyfriends cousin that...."

I mean why even post something if it's not factual? It just confuses people and has a tendancy to become "fact" because it was posted here.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 9):
CMH-PSM.

at least you quit slamming BLI since that route is running extremely full now witht he next 2 months average one way fare for 240 dollars.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 12):
flew skybus today... CMH-GSO..arrived a little late at 6:05pm. We didn't stop in richmond. Not sure what this flight is.



Quoting Tbolt1 (Reply 13):
Pilot crews getting checked out by the FAA....and that is the final answer

Thanks for some FACTS guys  Smile
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:55 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 18):
This is why A.net has gone down hill "I am guessing", or "I heard from my Mom's sister's ex-boyfriends cousin that...."

I mean why even post something if it's not factual? It just confuses people and has a tendancy to become "fact" because it was posted here.

I clearly made out that I was guessing. And based on what Tbolt1 said, I was correct in guessing the routing, and he still hasn't told us if it had revenue passengers or not. If it did, my guessing was pretty spot on. They were able to merge the two flights and do some FAA crew testing in one.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 18):
at least you quit slamming BLI since that route is running extremely full now witht he next 2 months average one way fare for 240 dollars.

I didn't slam BLI. I just slammed Skybus' marketing of BLI.

[Edited 2007-06-13 03:56:26]
a.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:00 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 19):
and he still hasn't told us if it had revenue passengers or not.

Since RIC-GSO has not been approved for Revenue service there could not have been revenue pax on board per the FAR121 rules.


You are correct on BLI, my apologies.
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
mnevans
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:46 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:04 am

There were people who found "hidden flights" on the route map on Skybus.com and I believe one of them was RIC-GSO, please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:10 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 20):
Since RIC-GSO has not been approved for Revenue service there could not have been revenue pax on board per the FAR121 rules.

I don't get it. There are no rules regulating domestic service. We are not regulated. Any domestic airline can fly any domestic city pair. They do not have to be approved for revenue service on anything. Unless Skybus is under some special rules because they are a new carrier (which is possible, I have no idea), they could easily carry revenue traffic between any two cities in the lower-48 and (IIRC) Puerto Rico. They would need to apply for flag carrier status to service Alaska and Hawai'i.

None the less, Tbolt has made clear there was no revenue traffic.

[Edited 2007-06-13 04:13:13]
a.
 
tbolt1
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:29 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:11 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 19):
I clearly made out that I was guessing. And based on what Tbolt1 said, I was correct in guessing the routing, and he still hasn't told us if it had revenue passengers or not. If it did, my guessing was pretty spot on. They were able to merge the two flights and do some FAA crew testing in one.

I thought I stated it, but there were no pax....just multiple pilot crews and 3 FAs and the FAA inspector.
"You can be my wingman anytime."
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:24 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 22):

A part 121 air carrier may not carry passengers for revenue air service unless:


Federal Aviation Regulation



Sec. 121.93

Part 121 OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS
Subpart E--Approval of Routes: Domestic and Flag Operations

Sec. 121.93

Route requirements: General.

(a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations seeking a route approval must show--
(1) That it is able to conduct satisfactorily scheduled operations between each regular, provisional, and refueling airport over that route or route segment; and
(2) That the facilities and services required by Secs. 121.97 through 121.107 are available and adequate for the proposed operation.
The Administrator approves a route outside of controlled airspace if he determines that traffic density is such that an adequate level of safety can be assured.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not require actual flight over a route or route segment if the certificate holder shows that the flight is not essential to safety, considering the availability and adequacy of airports, lighting, maintenance, communication, navigation, fueling, ground, and airplane radio facilities, and the ability of the personnel to be used in the proposed operation.

Amdt. 121-253, Eff. 2/26/96

Until this is demonstrated, no Part 121 can just start flying to a city.
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
CitrusCritter
Posts: 770
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:36 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:27 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 9):
Flying routes to Florida, Vegas, and Southern California from various mid-size cities is where the Skybus model has the best chance of success, not idiotic routes like CMH-GSO and CMH-PSM.

So in other words, the G4 model?
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:27 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 24):

Until this is demonstrated, no Part 121 can just start flying to a city.

Of course they can. Read Part (b):

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not require actual flight over a route or route segment if the certificate holder shows that the flight is not essential to safety, considering the availability and adequacy of airports, lighting, maintenance, communication, navigation, fueling, ground, and airplane radio facilities, and the ability of the personnel to be used in the proposed operation.

[Edited 2007-06-13 04:30:55]
a.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:30 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 26):
b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not require actual flight over a route or route segment if the certificate holder shows that the flight is not essential to safety, considering the availability and adequacy of airports, lighting, maintenance, communication, navigation, fueling, ground, and airplane radio facilities, and the ability of the personnel to be used in the proposed operation.

you're wrong on that assumption. they cannot demonstrate (b) because they do not have a long enough history as an operating carrier.


Federal Aviation Regulation

Sec. 121.163

Part 121 OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS
Subpart H--Aircraft Requirements

Sec. 121.163

Aircraft proving tests.

(a) Initial airplane proving tests. No person may operate an airplane not before proven for use in a kind of operation under this part or part 135 of this chapter unless an airplane of that type has had, in addition to the airplane certification tests, at least 100 hours of proving tests acceptable to the Administrator, including a representative number of flights into en route airports. The requirement for at least 100 hours of proving tests may be reduced by the Administrator if the Administrator determines that a satisfactory level of proficiency has been demonstrated to justify the reduction. At least 10 hours of proving flights must be flown at night; these tests are irreducible.
(b) Proving tests for kinds of operations. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, for each type of airplane, a certificate holder must conduct at least 50 hours of proving tests acceptable to the Administrator for each kind of operation it intends to conduct, including a representative number of flights into en route airports.
(c) Proving tests for materially altered airplanes. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, for each type of airplane that is materially altered in design, a certificate holder must conduct at least 50 hours of proving tests acceptable to the Administrator for each kind of operation it intends to conduct with that airplane, including a representative number of flights into en route airports.
(d) Definition of materially altered. For the purposes of paragraph (c) of this section, a type of airplane is considered to be materially altered in design if the alteration includes--
(1) The installation of powerplants other than those of a type similar to those with which it is certificated; or
(2) Alterations to the aircraft or its components that materially affect flight characteristics.
(e) No certificate holder may carry passengers in an aircraft during proving tests, except for those needed to make the test and those designated by the Administrator. However, it may carry mail, express, or other cargo, when approved.

Amdt. 121-251, Eff. 1/19/96

Part B is the reason why and part E is what TBOLT confirmed. I should have only posted this part, sorry to confuse you.

[Edited 2007-06-13 04:45:54]
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
qwerty
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2001 7:31 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:06 pm

Thanks for those who cleared up my guess. Since we have deviated into a new thread voting on the success of Skybus, I'll add my two cents. I think their b-model is crap (it's generated a lot of buzz, though which they deserve KUDOS) so I am surprised by how well funded, and by whom, they are. So I can't place my bet.

CMH is a dump of a place to hub, IMO. America West couldn't do it with CRJs; yes I know this is a horrible argument. People will say all sorts of things about how many big cities there are in Ohio and how it is much more populous than one might guess. But I don't think Ohioans travel well. I'm done stirring the pot.
 
gregarious119
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:26 pm

Quoting Qwerty (Reply 28):
CMH is a dump of a place to hub, IMO. America West couldn't do it with CRJs; yes I know this is a horrible argument. People will say all sorts of things about how many big cities there are in Ohio and how it is much more populous than one might guess. But I don't think Ohioans travel well. I'm done stirring the pot.

The statement "America West couldn't do it with CRJs" says nothing about CMH's ability as a hub or how dumpy it is.

What else do you want? 2 parallel runways with good navaids. Not a lot of congesting traffic (I've ever waited to taxi...wait...never). A relatively modern terminal in better than average condition. Easy access to a freeway. Plenty of parking short and long term.

And...oh yeah...a "decent" catchment area. Certainly not NYC, but not the middle of Montana either. I'm over in DAY and we're getting plenty of buzz about Skybus, both in the media and hearing people talk around town.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:00 am

Quoting Qwerty (Reply 28):
America West couldn't do it with CRJs;

But they did do it with Airbuses. They had a profitable hub in CMH for over 5 years, when they went down to high cost CRJs that is when the hub fell apart.

(THat and WN coming into town and kicking butt)
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
qwerty
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2001 7:31 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:07 am

Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 29):
What else do you want? 2 parallel runways with good navaids. Not a lot of congesting traffic (I've ever waited to taxi...wait...never). A relatively modern terminal in better than average condition. Easy access to a freeway. Plenty of parking short and long term.

...I'm over in DAY...

DAY has 2 longer parallel runways than CMH plus an extra. Very modern, well-laid-out terminal. Easy access to I-70. Plenty of parking, short and long term. Would it work there too? It's closer to Cincy too.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:14 am

Quoting Qwerty (Reply 31):
Very modern, well-laid-out terminal

I grew up in DAY and it's a nice airport but CMH is in a different league.

(5 on airport hotels, covered parking, closer to the city etc.)

Although only DAY has the wright B flyer pattern in the carpet in the terminal  Smile



When is the D concourse going to be reopened?
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
qwerty
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2001 7:31 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:43 am

Sure CMH is marginally better amenity-wise, but it's still a dump of a place to hub a startup, point-to-point airline. (Central) Ohio can't support their notion, again IMO.

How about changing the thread a little and point out some other cities where Skybus' b-model stands a better chance. That is a tough question and I'm not sure how I'd answer it, especially if you forcibly would not ticket city pairs not including the home city.

[Edited 2007-06-13 21:45:14]
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:49 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 30):

But they did do it with Airbuses. They had a profitable hub in CMH for over 5 years, when they went down to high cost CRJs that is when the hub fell apart.

If it was profitable with Airbus aircraft, then why downgrade to CRJs in the first place?

Answer: It wasn't profitable with Airbus aircraft (with or without oppurtunity costs).
a.
 
gregarious119
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:06 am

Quoting Qwerty (Reply 31):

DAY has 2 longer parallel runways than CMH plus an extra. Very modern, well-laid-out terminal. Easy access to I-70. Plenty of parking, short and long term. Would it work there too? It's closer to Cincy too.

If someone wanted to find some investors, it just may  Smile

My opinion is that CMH looks more up-to-date than DAY, but they are both very convenient to get to.

Dang....I never realized that DAY had more runway available than CMH...including a crosswind runway. And I live here!  Smile
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:01 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 34):
If it was profitable with Airbus aircraft, then why downgrade to CRJs in the first place?

Answer: It wasn't profitable with Airbus aircraft (with or without oppurtunity costs).

Again, no facts too funny!

There was a huge post which I'll dig up for you about the profits HP had with the CMH hub until a strategy change occured. CMH was a very meaningful hub for several years.

FLYCMH had an excellent (AND factual post) on this issue:

"To touch upon america west's former Columbus operation, there are a series of events that lead to the hub's ultimate demise, some of which have already been brought to light.

america west had actually hit a point where the hub was running profitably, back when the airline had a fare structure much more akin to most legacy carriers. Prior to the events of 9/11/01, plans called to greatly expand the cmh hub by adding another 30-some flights a day and building 7 more gates for america west's expanded operation. The blueprints and renderings still hang as a reminder of better times in the now USAirways breakroom.

america west was deeply rattled by the events of 9/11/01. So much in fact, that the airline applied for and received a large government loan available to all carriers to try and regain a solid footing. america west then revised their pricing structure to a more simplified format, more akin to the likes of low cost carriers like AirTran.

The revised fare structure lead to a surge in load factors, but rendered the now primarily-RJ hub incapable of turning a profit. For example, before the move to a simplified pricing structure, a round-trip walk-up flight from Columbus to Toronto on america west Express would have run upwards of $1,000. After the move, walk-up fares were capped at around $550. In addition, a lot of low-yield connecting traffic was being filtered through cmh, causing even weaker yields. Ultimately, it was decided to discontinue the hub operation in Columbus in favor of focusing on the primary hubs in PHX and LAS. "

from : RE: Skybus Now Boarding (by FlyCMH May 26 2007 in Civil Aviation)

When HP decided to change the entire operation into an LCC , that's when the CRJ's and their new pricing forced them to de hub CMH.


Also, read this:

http://www.psa-history.org/awa/cmh.html

[Edited 2007-06-13 23:28:22]
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:28 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 36):

Again, no facts too funny!

Again, oppurtunity costs, too funny!

Though that still doesn't have anything to do with this. Columbus is a poor market for a hub, but Skybus isn't running a hub in Columbus, they are running a point-to-point operation, and plan to expand this to other markets. This is why, as I've said, routes like Burbank and Ft. Lauderdale can work. Routes like Porstmouth and Greensboro can't. I bet that when Skybus gets into difficulty in a year or so, we'll see PSM-CMH replaced, for example, with PSM-FLL, in an effort to save the airline. It just might work.
a.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:35 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 37):
Though that still doesn't have anything to do with this. Columbus is a poor market for a hub, but Skybus isn't running a hub in Columbus, they are running a point-to-point operation, and plan to expand this to other markets. This is why, as I've said, routes like Burbank and Ft. Lauderdale can work. Routes like Porstmouth and Greensboro can't. I bet that when Skybus gets into difficulty in a year or so, we'll see PSM-CMH replaced, for example, with PSM-FLL, in an effort to save the airline. It just might work.

Your argument of "opportunity cost" has little to do with the dynamics of a CMH hub, but it is interesting to see your agreement now that CMH can support P2P.


At some point their was an opportunity for profit LOL

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-21055743.html

then there wasn't kind of like AA in RDU, BNA, SJC.....etc etc



Did you learn about proving runs and FAR121 in this thread at least?

[Edited 2007-06-13 23:38:33]
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:42 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 38):
but it is interesting to see your agreement now that CMH can support P2P.

Did I ever argue otherwise? No.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 38):
Your argument of "opportunity cost" has little to do with the dynamics of a CMH hub,

I suggest you learn some basic economics and learn about oppurtunity costs.
a.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:04 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 39):
Did I ever argue otherwise? No.

ummm....yes several time you said there was no demand for non-stops from CMH or else they would already be operating.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 39):
I suggest you learn some basic economics and learn about oppurtunity costs.

Opportunity cost is:

"1. The cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action.

2. The difference in return between a chosen investment and one that is necessarily passed up. Say you invest in a stock and it returns a paltry 2% over the year. In placing your money in the stock, you gave up the opportunity of another investment - say, a risk-free government bond yielding 6%. In this situation, your opportunity costs are 4% (6%-2%)."

Unless HP could have made more money with the same assets elsewhere, then there was no opportunity cost reason for de hubbing. The hub was as profitable or more profitable for the assets deployed from the years 1992-1998. As HP moved to CRJ's (outsourced from Mesa) the market changed and HP decided to change their pricing strategy which was creating a loss. (and would have anywhere, since their pricing structure did no support CRJ's en masse).

The de-hubbing was due to economic and profit issues since the use of high cost CRJ's that were under contract . This contract was terminated, those assets were not reployed elsewhere, hence no "opportunity cost" of redeploying those assets to get a better return elsewhere.

Mesa licked their wounds and redeployed those assets to UA Express.

"America West closed its Columbus hub in 2003 and Mesa again reallocated the assets this time to its newly reacquired United Express operation "


Thanks for the insult about Finance that's funny  Smile If you only knew....

[Edited 2007-06-14 00:07:14]
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:09 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 40):
ummm....yes several time you said there was no demand for non-stops from CMH or else they would already be operating.

No, I have not. I've argued the stupidity of markets like Richmond, Greensboro, and Porstmouth, not the O&D to markets like Ft. Lauderdale and Burbnak.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 40):
Thanks for the insult about Finance that's funny Smile If you only knew....

Trust me, I know, having graduated with an AB in economics from the University of Chicago. I don't need a lesson, you do. I'm out.
a.
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:14 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 41):
Greensboro

The four skybus flights I have taken between CMH and GSO have all been about 80% Full.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24604
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:17 am

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 42):

The four skybus flights I have taken between CMH and GSO have all been about 80% Full.

Not doubting you. Let's see how full they are in September when air travel in general down, people realize more about how Skybus operates (it isn't for everyone), and the hype is gone.

Virtually all start-ups see great results in the first 6 months or so, and Skybus will be no exception to this.

[Edited 2007-06-14 00:19:11]
a.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:19 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 41):
Trust me, I know, having graduated with an AB in economics from the University of Chicago. I don't need a lesson, you do. I'm out.

Well apparently you might want a refresher , and how do you know I don't have a Finance degree from a "better" institution?

I would imagine since you can't repute the assertion that opportunity cost was not involved there is nothing left to say.

Funny, I worked for a guy that had a Econ degree from Harvard and a MBA from Chicago a few years ago, and he also could not read a Financial statement ....interesting.

Also, another member on here went to LSE (London School of Economics, or "Let's see Europe" as we called it)

and he too has marvelled at your posts.

I'll go dig up the quotes you made about Skybus P2P but with your excessive postings it's hard to search sometimes.

Cheers
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus RIC - GSO Right Now

Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:37 am

the quote was in answer to another poster and My discussion about non-stop flights to the Bay area and non-stops in general from CMH

Post 55
Skybus Gets Certified (by Tbolt1 May 11 2007 in Civil Aviation)

"Did it ever cross your mind that there are no non-stops because the market isn't large enough? And business travelers will stick to connecting, they aren't going to be flying Skybus."



You seem like a nice guy, sorry if I seem harsh. If you really do have a degree from Chicago, why would you purposely contribute information to A.net that is not factual and mis-represents actual facts so brazenly? I am not saying you are disingenuious, just trite many times.

Of course your income is not generated from Aviation, it's your hobby. I am just confused as to why you would not be as passionate about your hobby as you seem to have been about your education and professional qualifications.
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L