uncgso
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:14 am

Skybus Cities...

Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:45 am

Was browsing the net and ran upon this "article" dated back in April about the "initial" cities to be served by Skybus. I find this interesting considering the recent announcements. Check it out:

http://www.onlinetravelreview.com/on...eview/2007/04/an_otr_exclusiv.html
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Skybus Cities...

Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:48 am

SAN is already a done deal. I saw their ticket counter at T2 on Oct 17th. It is right next to AA's, but there is only 1 check-in kiosk in front of the SX ticket counter.

T2_Map_Apr07.pdf" target=_blank>http://www.san.org/documents/maps/SDIA_T2_Map_Apr07.pdf
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:32 pm

They are pulling out of SAN, OAK and BL in March.


They are keeping 1x CMH-BUR and adding 1x GSO-BUR at least.
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
FLYB6JETS
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:05 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:51 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 2):
They are pulling out of SAN, OAK and BL in March.

Uhh, BLI is done Jan 6th there big guy...
"If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!"
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:52 pm

Quoting FLYB6JETS (Reply 3):
Uhh, BLI is done Jan 6th there big guy...

oops my bad..thanks big guy.
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
FLYB6JETS
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:05 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:55 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 4):
oops my bad..thanks big guy

Always glad to be of service  bigthumbsup 
"If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!"
 
thegreatRDU
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:47 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:45 pm

Is there a chance they'll serve RDU?
Our Returning Champion
 
BlueElephant
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:16 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:16 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 2):
They are pulling out of SAN, OAK and BL in March.

Are they really Pulling out of OAK??....I thought they were going to keep OAK, and 1 BUR flight from CMH...

If so kinda dissapointed...  Sad


But in regards to the thread...I think the OP is trying to suggest that they gave out most of the Initial Destinations before even starting annoucing a number of them...So based on them then...

Cancun and Nassau would be next which is what We've pretty much known anyway...Interesting...

Thanks for that link!
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:36 pm

Quoting ThegreatRDU (Reply 6):
Is there a chance they'll serve RDU?

Doubtful, GSO is too close. Plus RDU has quite a few LCC options already, GSO does not.

Quoting BlueElephant (Reply 7):
Cancun and Nassau would be next which is what We've pretty much known anyway...Interesting...

Since these cities were announced quite a while back, it makes no sense to me why they haven't got schedules loaded yet. Two big winter vacation destinations that could be potential cash cows. If they wait until spring, other than college spring breakers, not that many people are going to be going to those destinations. Pre-Memorial Day loads are usually light on airlines. They are missing a big chance here to prove themselves.
 
7e72004
Posts: 3440
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:15 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:37 pm

How many airports does Skybus use jetbridges? I know there are a few but am curious to know. thanks  Smile
The next generation of aircraft is just around the corner!
 
quagmire123
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:14 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:43 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 2):
They are pulling out of SAN, OAK and BL in March.

Where did you get that SX was pulling out of OAK? That destination is still there to stay for now. They only droped San Diego, Bellingham, and 1 of the 2 Burbank flights out of CMH....but they are having 1 Burbank flight from GSO.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:48 pm

Quoting BlueElephant (Reply 7):
If so kinda dissapointed...

Sorry about the confusion , it's only SAN and BLI.
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
RICguy
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:03 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:33 am

Quoting 7E72004 (Reply 9):
How many airports does Skybus use jetbridges? I know there are a few but am curious to know. thanks

I know in the past they have used the jetway at gate B15 @ RIC. They now use gate B5 and I am unsure if they still use the jetway though.
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:36 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 2):
They are pulling out of SAN....

Holy Guacamole! Why? Isn't SAN a huge tourist destination by almost every airline??
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:42 am

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 13):
Holy Guacamole! Why? Isn't SAN a huge tourist destination by almost every airline??

Makes no sense to me. Obviously the loads must be bad, or that CMH is just not much of an O&D city for SAN. Dropping cities so soon, before you get a chance to build up a client base and reputation doesn't make much sense to me. They obviously think the pastures are greener in Florida, Newburgh, and Chattanooga.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:47 am

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 13):
SAN a huge tourist destination by almost every airline??

Skybus made a point of adjusting their small fleet to pick up GSO service and PSM Flordia service and they just don't have enough planes (only 7 by the time they start SWF in January) to serve 17 cities whlle tying up an 1 plane for each west coast turn for 10 hours a day (block)

It's pretty straight forward route and equipment management although it's been seriously blown into wild speculation on anet (IMHO) that it's a sign of imminent failure.

With as much money as B6 had at start up this little airline has deep pockets and is being very careful in how they grow, much like B6 did when they started.

[Edited 2007-11-03 19:57:27]
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
SANFan
Posts: 3688
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:10 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 15):
Skybus made a point of adjusting their small fleet to pick up GSO service and PSM Flordia service and they just don't have enough planes (only 7 by the time they start SWF in January) to serve 17 cities whlle tying up an 1 plane for each west coast turn for 10 hours a day (block)

If this was in fact the case, I would expect SX would have perhaps "temporarily suspended" op's at SAN & BLI (or at least worded their action as such) until a few more of their 60+ planes show up. I have no idea if the term used by the airline really matters in the long run as far as the airport is concerned, e.g., could the airport "hold their space" for a limited time in order to assure the airline will have space when they return (maybe more of an issue at Lindbergh than at BLI?) but I would think it might.

I can't imagine that at some point down the road -- assuming there is a future for SX and considering their announced fleet size -- SkyBus would not want or need to return to both SAN and the Seattle-area. There's also the consideration of the cost of wasted effort involved in a start-up having to then be repeated?

Despite how the airport must view such a quick departure as an indication of failed service, I would think that if a new airline is seriously considering returning to a dropped city, p r-wise it would be much better to "temporarily suspend" service than just leave. That would indicate to me support of the theory mentioned by Itsnotfinals (repeated at the beginning of this post) whereas just quiting might imply more dire reasons for the move.

I am not an SX-supporter but I must admit that them pulling out of my airport certainly does not enhance my feelings about them. I also must assume that most people who would fly SX probably do not harbor airline loyalty so continuity of service is perhaps not important. So, in the end, SX probably doesn't worry much about it either.

bb
 
kcrwflyer
Posts: 2534
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 11:57 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 15):
It's pretty straight forward route and equipment management although it's been seriously blown into wild speculation on anet (IMHO) that it's a sign of imminent failure.

Nothing gets blown way out or proportion due to wild speculation on a.net.... no way  Yeah sure

Quoting SANFan (Reply 16):
Despite how the airport must view such a quick departure as an indication of failed service,

Actually, unlike most of us on a.net, the folks at the airport more than likely know exactly why SkyBus left.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 14):
Makes no sense to me. Obviously the loads must be bad, or that CMH is just not much of an O&D city for SAN. Dropping cities so soon, before you get a chance to build up a client base and reputation doesn't make much sense to me.

I dont see how dropping a city that uses up valuable hours of an aircraft that could be running multiple routes in the time it takes to fly to SAN and back is an obvious sign of bad loads, or a sign that CMH is a bad O&D city for SAN. For all we know the flight could have made a profit. Maybe their research shows that flying 3 routes in the time you were flying 1 can make more money?

Dropping the cities sooner could actually be better than dropping them later. Dropping them now, without a real client base means they're not bailing out on a large client base. If they were to wait longer and bail out, there would be more people aware of them, thus more people with a negative opinion of them.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:22 pm

Quoting SANFan (Reply 16):
would think that if a new airline is seriously considering returning to a dropped city, p r-wise it would be much better to "temporarily suspend" service than just leave.

SFO didn't seem to have an issue when WN came back after a few years absence.
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:38 pm

Quoting KcrwFlyer (Reply 17):
I dont see how dropping a city that uses up valuable hours of an aircraft that could be running multiple routes in the time it takes to fly to SAN and back is an obvious sign of bad loads, or a sign that CMH is a bad O&D city for SAN. For all we know the flight could have made a profit. Maybe their research shows that flying 3 routes in the time you were flying 1 can make more money?

I agree to a certain extent. However, it seems like poor route planning by SX to start out operating to west coast cities initially with such a small fleet, then dropping some so soon. It doesn't exactly build up consumer confidence in those places should they decide to return. IMO, they should have started with the original Florida destinations and then added various other eastern destinations they are now. Then as new planes arrived, they could have made a push westward. I dare say whatever brand loyalty they may have built at SAN and BLI is pretty much gone. To go back would cost money to reopen the station, and they'd most likely have to heavily discount seats to win back pax. I've always though one flight a day makes no sense, which is why I think they erred in trying too many transcon destination at startup.
 
gregarious119
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:59 pm

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 19):
I agree to a certain extent. However, it seems like poor route planning by SX to start out operating to west coast cities initially with such a small fleet, then dropping some so soon. It doesn't exactly build up consumer confidence in those places should they decide to return. IMO, they should have started with the original Florida destinations and then added various other eastern destinations they are now. Then as new planes arrived, they could have made a push westward. I dare say whatever brand loyalty they may have built at SAN and BLI is pretty much gone. To go back would cost money to reopen the station, and they'd most likely have to heavily discount seats to win back pax. I've always though one flight a day makes no sense, which is why I think they erred in trying too many transcon destination at startup.

Part of me wonders if they chose the West-coast flights based on incentives giving to them by Port Columbus for starting that non-stop service. Now that they've been running for 6 months or so, they're probably realizing what KcrwFlyer was talking about...that they can make more money on a r/t to GSO, PSM, and PGD in the same time they can do one CMH-SAN-CMH routing.

It may be that the increased profits on those shorter runs outweighs what CMH was giving them for the longer runs...
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:30 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 18):
SFO didn't seem to have an issue when WN came back after a few years absence.

That's because OAK is next door. So WN really didn't go anywhere...
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:34 pm

Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 20):
Part of me wonders if they chose the West-coast flights based on incentives giving to them by Port Columbus for starting that non-stop service

Makes sense. GSO is giving them a ton of money to build up there. They need to find their core destinations and stick with them if they want to become a player however. They can't get by on incentives alone. If they pull out of any other destinations they got $$$ from, it's not likely other airports would be willing to lay out the expenditures to attract them when there may be an uncertainty that they will stay.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:35 pm

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 21):
That's because OAK is next door. So WN really didn't go anywhere

you forgot SJC.  Smile

As someone who spent excessive time in the bay area, there is a huge difference between SFO and OAK depending on the time of day and where you are coming from.
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
SANFan
Posts: 3688
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:38 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 18):
SFO didn't seem to have an issue when WN came back after a few years absence.

I think it's quite different. I really don't think WN planned on returning to SFO when they left and, as has been said, they did stay in the 2 "neighboring" cities. (After all, they have been gone from SFO for nearly 7 years.)

As I said before, I find it very hard to believe that with 60+ airplanes due, SX is not planning to fly to the entire west coast again (and if they do, I would certainly think that would include SAN and BLI.) And, as I and Skyy' both posted here, you lose a lot of customers' faith when you pull out of a city so fast and then try to come crawling back a couple of years later. (And I think the last thing SX needs to do is lose a single repeat customer.)

Quoting KcrwFlyer (Reply 17):
Actually, unlike most of us on a.net, the folks at the airport more than likely know exactly why SkyBus left

No question that this a very true statement; but if we had the real reasons for airline moves (either from the airline or the airport folks) we probably wouldn't be here, nor would A.net even exist!

Sorry but I still don't think this was smart and I don't think it bodes well for a rosy future for the bus.

bb
 
DeltaAVL
Posts: 1525
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:15 pm

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:44 pm

Quoting ThegreatRDU (Reply 6):
Is there a chance they'll serve RDU?

Are you kidding? GSO is a focus city of SX's; it would make no sense at all to invade RDU. Nope, there is ZERO chance of SX serving RDU.
"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
 
timberwolf24
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 8:38 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:06 pm

A few weeks ago there was a report that SX was looking at GYY, anyone have any more info/speculation on if or when this might happen?
Living in LA, ORD/MDW will always be home!
 
kcrwflyer
Posts: 2534
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 11:57 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:56 pm

Quoting SANFan (Reply 24):
No question that this a very true statement; but if we had the real reasons for airline moves (either from the airline or the airport folks) we probably wouldn't be here, nor would A.net even exist!

It'd exist. Instead of arguing about what we thought was going on, we'd be arguing about what was actually happening and whether we agreed with the decisions or not  Smile

Quoting SANFan (Reply 24):
As I said before, I find it very hard to believe that with 60+ airplanes due, SX is not planning to fly to the entire west coast again (and if they do, I would certainly think that would include SAN and BLI.) And, as I and Skyy' both posted here, you lose a lot of customers' faith when you pull out of a city so fast and then try to come crawling back a couple of years later. (And I think the last thing SX needs to do is lose a single repeat customer.)

I dont think people flying SAN-CMH is their focus. SAN will always be a popular destination, and when/if they bring the route back a few years down the road, the folks in CMH probably wont care or remember that they dropped the route. I doubt it will stop a noticeable amount of pax from booking CMH-SAN down the road.

Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 25):
Are you kidding? GSO is a focus city of SX's; it would make no sense at all to invade RDU. Nope, there is ZERO chance of SX serving RDU.

Having driven that corridor multiple times (GSO-durham/raliegh), I would guess that for the right price, someone wouldn't hesitate to drive from Durham to Greensboro for a flight.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 22):
They can't get by on incentives alone. If they pull out of any other destinations they got $$$ from, it's not likely other airports would be willing to lay out the expenditures to attract them when there may be an uncertainty that they will stay.

I understand what you're saying here, but keep in mind that legacy carriers start routes because of grants and pull out when the money is gone all the time. It doesn't stop other airports from going out and giving them incentives.

Every new route that any airline starts, regardless of how much research is done, is a risk to an extent. Airports understand this, so they're not going to hold anything against an airline that leaves because a route isnt performing to expectations. Theres always a level of uncertainty, and that goes for any airline.
 
7e72004
Posts: 3440
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:15 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:12 am

Has anyone on here had any problems when flying Skybus? It seems that considering the amount of flights they have to many cities (1x per day), that if a flight is cancelled, and you are returning home, you could be screwed.
The next generation of aircraft is just around the corner!
 
Jpax
Posts: 715
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:01 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:26 am

Flew into PDG today, the terminal is coming along nicely... although the widespread construction makes taxiing around the airport interesting for first timers.  Wink
 
DTWAGENT
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:16 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:53 am

Sounds to me like this airlines does not know what they are doing. They go into a city for a few weeks and then pull out. How can they test that market by doing that. They are in it for a quick buck. I would not book anyone on that carrier. Something is just to fishy about them.... And as far as charging for everything. NK is doing this now. They are charging $10.00 for the first bag to be checked and $20.00 per bag after that for one person. And they are charging $1.00 for water and pop and for any snack food. NK is the true RyanAir of the United States. And it is true you may get that fare for $18.00 R/T (if you belong to their club). But, after you have paid for everything else you could fly Airtran for the same price, but with better service.

Chuck
 
billreid
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:14 am

Quoting SANFan (Reply 16):
If this was in fact the case, I would expect SX would have perhaps "temporarily suspended" op's at SAN & BLI (or at least worded their action as such) until a few more of their 60+ planes show up. I have no idea if the term used by the airline really matters in the long run as far as the airport is concerned, e.g., could the airport "hold their space" for a limited time in order to assure the airline will have space when they return (maybe more of an issue at Lindbergh than at BLI?) but I would think it might.

Itsnotfinals is once again a little off base. (as was his OAK closing comments)
The CEO openly stated to the Columbus press that they were getting out of much of the long-haul market because the real profitability was in short-haul. He mentioned the near $90 ber barrel and was concerned about making money.
Translated into common English, they were losing their proverbial shorts with very poor CMH-WEST booking trends.

The industry analysts believe the summer was quite good for SX as a result of high load factors resulting in gathering a good deal of pax from spill. Unfortunately for SX the spill has dried up and they are adjusting their flying. As for the 60 acft, who knows how many will be delivered however Airbus does frequently sell large groups of positions that never get delivered because if the airline balks there are plenty of other suitors willing to take the aircraft.
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:28 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 31):
e CEO openly stated to the Columbus press that they were getting out of much of the long-haul market because the real profitability was in short-haul

At least read my posts, that is exactly what I posted for the last 2 weeks, realigning assets to maximize profits which you then said was a sign of their infinite demise  

Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 30):
and $20.00 per bag after that for one person. And they are charging $1.00 for water and pop and for any snack food.

like NW charging for an aislie seat? all the airlines need ancilliary income right now.

[Edited 2007-11-04 18:34:23]
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
BlueElephant
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:16 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:10 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 31):
The CEO openly stated to the Columbus press that they were getting out of much of the long-haul market because the real profitability was in short-haul. He mentioned the near $90 ber barrel and was concerned about making money.
Translated into common English, they were losing their proverbial shorts with very poor CMH-WEST booking trends.

Sorry Bill,

I read the CEO's comments completely differently....

How about you translate it this way...They are getting out of the long-haul market because they can make money on the shorter haul routes, and at this point, with Gas Prices going up...why not make more money on shorter routes?
Or more eloquently...

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 32):
realigning assets to maximize profits

Plus...By taking out these west coast routes...you free up 3 much needed aircraft....like I said before..10 block hours a day per plane....

You Keep suggesting that Skybus is doing Everything wrong...yet obviously thats because you refuse to read the positives.
 
billreid
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:14 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 32):
At least read my posts, that is exactly what I posted for the last 2 weeks, realigning assets to maximize profits which you then said was a sign of their infinite demise

Then you are contradicting yourself??
What part of ordering 60 aircraft and not being able to maintain the first stations do you not get.
By pulling out of Bellingham and San Diego SX sends a very strong message to the public. "We are not committed to the market" The concept is echoed by the CEO on discussing going to short-haul. This is a clear cut message the model is broken. The analysis (if any) to go to SAN or Bellingham was apparently wrong. The satement by the CEO that they are moving to short haul is a clear cut RED FLAG showing that they didn't understand there own CASM's and RASM's based on his comments, not to mention throwing in 20 minute turns on 4hr flights. All rookie mistakes.

For all the shouting SX FAILS in its west coast stations.
Based on your 77% PLF I would suggest the yield is well below cost. Otherwise they don't destroy goodwill and let the public know that the first stations are failing.
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:21 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 34):
The satement by the CEO that they are moving to short haul

So why did they keep OAK and net exchange GSO- BUR for 1 CMH-BUR?

the facts are:

7 aircraft in January

Adding SWF

Adding GSO

Adding PSM frequencies

how can 7 aircraft serve all these cities at once?

or re-aligning assets to maximize profit while they wait on their additional deliveries? That was the logic posited sveral weeks ago by several folks, not just me.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 34):
Based on your 77% PLF I would suggest the yield is well below cost.

but you said RASM and CASM are all that matters, not PLF (or LF as everyone else calls it)

[Edited 2007-11-04 19:24:08]
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
billreid
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:37 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 35):
but you said RASM and CASM are all that matters, not PLF (or LF as everyone else calls it)

No I said Rasm with PLF.

Please explain the value in burning good will? (Negative value)
Gee, It took three months to figure out short haul is better than long haul?
Go figure.

I have a stat. 96% of airline start-ups fail, its a fact of our industry.
Because of cost and consumer issues a start-up doesn't get two years to find yourself.
SX has blown six months already.

With the "not understanding stage-length" quote from the CEO would you put your life savings into SX?
With a 4% success rate I wouldn't. and with the moving of assets the success probability has dropped to about 2% as SX presently exists.

I question, who in a.net would invest their retirement in SX?
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
 
kcrwflyer
Posts: 2534
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 11:57 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:38 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 34):
Then you are contradicting yourself??
What part of ordering 60 aircraft and not being able to maintain the first stations do you not get.
By pulling out of Bellingham and San Diego SX sends a very strong message to the public. "We are not committed to the market" The concept is echoed by the CEO on discussing going to short-haul. This is a clear cut message the model is broken. The analysis (if any) to go to SAN or Bellingham was apparently wrong. The satement by the CEO that they are moving to short haul is a clear cut RED FLAG showing that they didn't understand there own CASM's and RASM's based on his comments, not to mention throwing in 20 minute turns on 4hr flights. All rookie mistakes.

With all due respect, what successful airline are you running these days?

I guess if you were running things at SkyBus you'd stay in these markets just for the sake of goodwill. How is the model broken? Jetblue pulled out of CMH and BNA, i guess their model is broken too, all because two cities didn't work as planned. I do agree that a 20 minute turn is kind of nuts, but to call their model broken over two flights is a bit rash. Maybe those particular routes just dont fit the model?

You do understand you're criticizing them for adjusting themselves to be more profitable? They saw an opportunity to make more money elsewhere with these planes and moved them around accordingly. Not capitalizing on an opportunity to increase profits would be the real mistake in my eyes. That is, after all, what business is about right; making MONEY?

Also, isnt this the first real test of this model in the US? That being said, how can we not expect a few routes that dont turn out as planned.
 
billreid
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:46 am

Quoting KcrwFlyer (Reply 37):
I guess if you were running things at SkyBus you'd stay in these markets just for the sake of goodwill. How is the model broken? Jetblue pulled out of CMH and BNA, i guess their model is broken too, all because two cities didn't work as planned. I do agree that a 20 minute turn is kind of nuts, but to call their model broken over two flights is a bit rash. Maybe those particular routes just dont fit the model?

JetBlue is established.
SX is not.

Quoting KcrwFlyer (Reply 37):
You do understand you're criticizing them for adjusting themselves to be more profitable? They saw an opportunity to make more money elsewhere with these planes and moved them around accordingly. Not capitalizing on an opportunity to increase profits would be the real mistake in my eyes. That is, after all, what business is about right; making MONEY?

You assume profits. Illogical response, I have yet to find any airline in start-up mode that kills profitable routes. Do you understand risk management?

Again, you never pull a profitable route! Never Never Never Never?
You pull a losing route? Seriously?
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:57 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 36):
SX has blown six months already.

Actually they have been almost 3 years already. But you were a consultant to them over a year ago so you should know that?

"http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1884790/?searchid=1884790&s=skybus#ID1884790"

"http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2970943/?searchid=2970943&s=skybus#ID2970943"

BillReid From United States, joined Jun 2006, 288 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted Mon Sep 4 2006 05:35:21 your local time (1 year 2 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2274 times:


"I spoke some time backwith (SIC) Skybus. "

Quoting BillReid (Reply 36):
I question, who in a.net would invest their retirement in SX?

Any US airline investment is a foolish idea right now.
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
billreid
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:02 am

They have not been in the air more than six months. From a consumer perspective they have been around for only six months. Perhaps ten for booking purposes.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 39):
Actually they have been almost 3 years already. But you were a consultant to them over a year ago so you should know that?
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:04 am

how much would it cost to start up an airline like Skybus in your opinion?

Quoting BillReid (Reply 38):
JetBlue is established.
SX is not.

Jet blue wasn't established when they started either, what is the point?

Quoting BillReid (Reply 38):
You assume profits

No i do not assume profits, quit making things up.

[quote=BillReid,reply=38]Again, you never pull a profitable route! Never Never Never Never?[/quote


Business is about making money.

[Edited 2007-11-04 20:08:27]
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
skyguyB727
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:45 pm

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:03 am

I was surprised to see SX announce service to MKE. Given their history of serving major cities through distant, secondary airports, I would have expected them to fly their Airbuses into FLD (Fond du Lac) or MTW (Manitowoc). Both have paved runways.
 
uncgso
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:14 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:25 am

Notice out of the list of cities in the article,

Burbank, Bellingham (north of Seattle), Westover Air Base (Springfield, MA - Hartford's secondary (?) airport), Cancun, Columbus (home base), Cozumel, Fort Lauderdale, Greensboro, Kansas City, Nassau, Oakland, Punta Gorda (Fort Myers' secondary airport), Richmond, San Diego, San Antonio, St. Augustine (Jacksonville), and Stewart - Newburgh (New York).

all are being served now (or at least are set to be) except for SAT.
Any rumors at all about San Antonio?
 
BlueElephant
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:16 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:32 am

Quoting SkyguyB727 (Reply 42):
I was surprised to see SX announce service to MKE. Given their history of serving major cities through distant, secondary airports, I would have expected them to fly their Airbuses into FLD (Fond du Lac) or MTW (Manitowoc). Both have paved runways.

FLD and MTW are too far north. I bet they started service to MKE to attract passengers to/from Northern Chicago, as well as Milwaukee.

Quoting Uncgso (Reply 43):
all are being served now (or at least are set to be) except for SAT.
Any rumors at all about San Antonio?

I could see them starting service there. I haven't heard any rumor about texas flights in a while though. I wouldn't be surprised to see them starting service, however Texas is WN territory, and Skybus would be smart to make sure that their flight(s) would be able to support the market as to not go into loss.
 
gregarious119
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:01 pm

Quoting BillReid (Reply 38):

You assume profits. Illogical response, I have yet to find any airline in start-up mode that kills profitable routes. Do you understand risk management?

With any due respect, BillReid, you seem to be bringing more people out of the woodwork in support of SX because your responses are coming across as hating on SX for sake of it, rather than adding any reasonable information to the argument.

Why would an airline hang onto a route that may be barely profitable, when they can put that plane on 3 runs that are *more* profitable?

I'm not saying that as a fact SAN/BLI was profitable and they're dropping them because these east coast runs are more profitable...but if you're in business to make money, that certainly seems like a good scenario to drop a "profitable route".
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:38 pm

Quoting KcrwFlyer (Reply 37):
You do understand you're criticizing them for adjusting themselves to be more profitable?

More profitable? Where is there any eveidence of any profit at all? One of this threads more vocal posters keeps declaring they are profitable, yet they do not release financials. Therefore, no one really knows if they are profitable. They've been in the air less than six months. They have already bailed on two destinations. Somehow I think the word profitable is not yet in Skybus boardroom conversations.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:46 pm

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 46):
Therefore, no one really knows if they are profitable.

Conversely no one knows if they are losing any money.

You have to stop to ask yourself, did GSO give millions of incentives to SX without dong due diligence?

Did PSM ask SX to add Florida frequencies without getting some comfort level with SX's ability to pay airport fees?

Why would SX add SWF almost immediately (<60 days from now)? Opening a new station costs a lot of money to start especially so quickly.

I don't think you will find any post by any one saying they are "profitable" , at this stage in a start up the most important factor is burn rate, all these activities seem to indicate burn rate is within their business plan parameters.

[Edited 2007-11-05 07:54:16]
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:18 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 47):
Conversely no one knows if they are losing any money.

If SX is depending on incentives from airports as a source of income, then that's not going to last forever. GSO like many airports has been begging for LCC service for years. Just because they gave Skybus big bucks doesn't mean it will make them profitable or that the planned service will even work. My guess is the first route to go will be GSO-BUR. The folks at GSO are pinning all their hopes on a startup airline in an industry where no startup has been successful in seven years. Ultimately, taxpayers at some of the cities SX wants to fly to and asks for airport upgrades, etc. are going to start asking questions. Especially if SX starts doing disappearing acts like at SAN and BLI. If they repeat that, more and more airports are going to look at them with a skeptical eye and most likely be less generous in their efforts to attract service. SX is still teething, they haven't proven anything positive yet, despite your repeated protestations. They need to figure out what they want to be. So far it sounds like they are making it up as they go along.
 
bravogolf
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:18 am

RE: Skybus Cities...

Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:14 pm

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 48):
If SX is depending on incentives from airports as a source of income, then that's not going to last forever

Wake up call everyone. This was their origional intent but may be changing.