727LOVER
Topic Author
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:54 am

Intially, the SRQ director was optomistic......but when she was alone, she finally reacted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap5Sw3xsZhU

Airport chief writes article on how WN/FL handled it:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120126/COLUMNIST/120129666
I personally think WN is full of SH_T----pick a vowel

The scramble to find new airlines:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120123/ARTICLE/120129787

After the bad press,WN apologizes:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120130/ARTICLE/120139977
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13808
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:08 am

I still see this as an opportunity for UA. CO left during a wave of cutbacks in 2008 at the depths of the downturn and the high fuel cost period, because CO didn't have enough demand to fly larger 737s, so they were mostly flying 735s and ERJs, which are thirsty. They flew the ERJ from IAH, which required a coastal route. And they had trouble making CLE work. B6 also temporarily flooded the market with lower starter fares and more seats (they have cut back).

But with the removal of capacity to chicago, the increased size of UA+CO (worlds largest), the addition of IAD and the flexibility of A319s and E75s (more efficient than ERJs and 735s), UA can easily make IAH, ORD, EWR and IAD work.

Because CO left, DL has once again abused SRQ with higher fares to get there from ATL despite using the same types of aircraft, and the fees being lower. It's once again ripe for UA to come in and offer TPA equivalent fares like before.

But who knows, seems like UA is still afraid of Florida, even after the CO merger with the CO management.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
billreid
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:06 am

SRQ may be better off without WN. They tend to scorch the competition and stagnate smaller markets.

Yes, agree that several airlines will consider filling gaps.
CO/UA is a possibility for CHI-town.
Where the largest problem exists is with BWI. Sarasota is the spring training home for Baltimore.
MKE, thats a challenge, but Frontier could consider.
IND has been a long standing winter connection from Indiana. Thats a hard one.
US could beef up CLT, and what about adding PHL?
DL could add more flow over ATL.
JetBlue won't fill any obvious holes left by FL.
SunCountry could fill some gaps.
Allegiant could look at some destinations.
Spirit could fill some CHI and add some other destinations as well.

WN is in antitrust territory at BWI, MDW and several other airports now.
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
 
727LOVER
Topic Author
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:39 am

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):

How exactly did B6 FLOOD the market??
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
EricR
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:58 am

Several things. The article states that the SQR, with a metro pop of 725,000, lost WN service but smaller sized cities such as Flint (425,000) and Key West (25,000) retained service.

However, what the article fails to mention is that due to its close proximity to TPA, a fair percentage of the SQR's metro population is cannibalized by TPA. Once you subtract out the number of SQR's metro population that uses TPA, the potential pool of customers drops considerably.

Secondly, Key West is not near another WN station. The closest WN station to Key West is FLL which is quite some distance away.

This article is a clear case of someone presenting one side of the story without looking at the full picture OR someone who has an ulterior motive.
 
727LOVER
Topic Author
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:17 am

Quoting EricR (Reply 4):

The article was WRITTEN by the airport director, he was a guest columnist.

TPA.....how many times do I have to hear this crap ??????!!!! People would use SRQ more if aiRlines provided better service at a competitive price.
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
EricR
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:26 am

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 5):
TPA.....how many times do I have to hear this crap ??????!!!! People would use SRQ more if aiRlines provided better service at a competitive price.

Perhaps, but this is the same issue faced at every secondary airport in a large metro area. It is not crap.....it is just simple economics.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 5):
The article was WRITTEN by the airport director, he was a guest columnist

Which is why I said:

Quoting EricR (Reply 4):
This article is a clear case of someone presenting one side of the story without looking at the full picture OR someone who has an ulterior motive.
 
John
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 1999 10:47 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:54 pm

I find it very odd that WN will maintain EYW as a station, especially with it's "seasonal fluctuations" in traffic. Besides the fact that FL currently only operates 2 flights a day in the market. That's not typical WN strategy. I'm wondering if EYW will see additional flights? Of course, the very short runway there is another factor, so you're very limited to what destinations can be served efficiently. I would assume service will be limited to just the nearby focus cities of FLL, MCO and TPA.
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3553
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:34 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
They flew the ERJ from IAH, which required a coastal route.

Was this an E145 or bigger?

Quoting John (Reply 7):
I find it very odd that WN will maintain EYW as a station, especially with it's "seasonal fluctuations" in traffic. Besides the fact that FL currently only operates 2 flights a day in the market. That's not typical WN strategy. I'm wondering if EYW will see additional flights? Of course, the very short runway there is another factor, so you're very limited to what destinations can be served efficiently. I would assume service will be limited to just the nearby focus cities of FLL, MCO and TPA.

Not only that I believe FL had to specially equip a 737 with brakes that could handle the short runway.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 6906
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:49 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 2):
They tend to scorch the competition and stagnate smaller markets.

Actually, SRQ just scorched their relationship with WN/FL. I'd say the public finger-pointing accomplished nothing positive and will put SRQ on WN's "avoid" list for years to come. I understand they are upset, but tossing blame around in the newspaper and even attempting to get an apology from WN is a crazy PR strategy. Did they really think WN was going to say, "sorry, we will give you another chance?" They wouldn't cake the mud on their own face like that. The airport should have taken the high road. Very embarrassing...

Quoting John (Reply 7):

I find it very odd that WN will maintain EYW as a station, especially with it's "seasonal fluctuations" in traffic.

Well, it does seem to have too few flights to survive, BUT it behaves like a combination of DCA and BGI. It's high yield, short-haul, and has restricted entry. If they can make it work cost-wise they will stay. It isn't as seasonal as you think.
 
kcrwflyer
Posts: 2550
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 11:57 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:16 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 9):
Actually, SRQ just scorched their relationship with WN/FL. I'd say the public finger-pointing accomplished nothing positive and will put SRQ on WN's "avoid" list for years to come. I understand they are upset, but tossing blame around in the newspaper and even attempting to get an apology from WN is a crazy PR strategy. Did they really think WN was going to say, "sorry, we will give you another chance?" They wouldn't cake the mud on their own face like that. The airport should have taken the high road. Very embarrassing...

WN obviously didn't want to fly there. Though you can't deny that when considering other cities they kept, leaving SRQ makes little or no sense.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 8):
Not only that I believe FL had to specially equip a 737 with brakes that could handle the short runway.

I think they're just regular 73G brakes.
 
CMHSRQ
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:49 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:27 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 9):
Actually, SRQ just scorched their relationship with WN/FL. I'd say the public finger-pointing accomplished nothing positive and will put SRQ on WN's "avoid" list for years to come. I understand they are upset, but tossing blame around in the newspaper and even attempting to get an apology from WN is a crazy PR strategy. Did they really think WN was going to say, "sorry, we will give you another chance?" They wouldn't cake the mud on their own face like that. The airport should have taken the high road. Very embarrassing...

Did you read the article? They didn't toss blame, they stated the reasons WN gave them for leaving, they never asked for an apology either. They did mention that what WN did was bordering on unethical. Which is true. Accept a bunch of money for advertising then announce you're pulling out a month later. It's like breaking up via text message.

This is the second time WN has screwed SRQ, first when they bought ATA, and pulled out, and now. They simply feel that the 300,000 pax who flew on FL last year will drive to TPA or RSW and still fly them. It's not about costs, or seasonality or anything like that. It's about the cheapness of the average WN passenger. Just like driving an extra mile to save a penny on gas. People will drive 2 hours to save 20 bucks.

SRQ is in a real pickle, DL, US, and B6 have load factors in the upper 80's low 90's so unless seat are added those passengers will use TPA or RSW.

The airport should try VA as well. There is enough O&D to PHL, ORD, and IAD to support dailies.

Maybe DL will make DTW daily year round, and double daily in the winter.

They have their work cut out for them.

Paul Murchie
The voice of moderation
 
boslax
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:34 pm

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:13 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 9):
Quoting enilria (Reply 9):
Actually, SRQ just scorched their relationship with WN/FL. I'd say the public finger-pointing accomplished nothing positive and will put SRQ on WN's "avoid" list for years to come

Just like El Paso did around 1995/1996. The mayor of ELP at the time decided to raise the airport fees despite the objection of WN and publicly said he didn't care what WN thought. WN eliminated 10 daily flights within a few weeks. Service has never recovered to this day.

Quoting cmhsrq (Reply 11):
Quoting cmhsrq (Reply 11):
They did mention that what WN did was bordering on unethical.

Is the SRQ director that arrogant to believe he is afforded special treatment. Ask the other 15 stations or so that Southwest/AirTran are eliminating if they got a visit from a WN executive. Probably not.

[Edited 2012-02-02 09:24:20]
 
ScottB
Posts: 5505
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:32 pm

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 10):
WN obviously didn't want to fly there. Though you can't deny that when considering other cities they kept, leaving SRQ makes little or no sense.

I suppose the question which must be asked is, "Why didn't WN want to fly there?" If we take "WN had it in for SRQ" off the table, I'd presume that the reasons would consist of some combination of small air travel market size, low yields, and large seasonal variations in traffic. Yields for FL on monopoly non-stop routes to SRQ from BWI & MDW were lower than WN's yields on routes to TPA from the same airports where they did face competition. FL's service profile at SRQ was/is highly seasonal, with 8 daily departures in the peak season and 3 in the slow season.

EYW's seasonality isn't anywhere near as extreme, and yields are much, much higher.
 
atrude777
Posts: 4258
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:23 pm

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:33 pm

Quoting cmhsrq (Reply 11):

This is the second time WN has screwed SRQ, first when they bought ATA, and pulled out, and now.

No it is not. Southwest Airlines have NEVER screwed SRQ, why are people saying that?

The decision of ATA not expanding at SRQ along with MIA was the decision of ATA alone. Was there a codeshare in place between the two? Yes, but Southwest was NOT in ownership of ATA in 2005 when SRQ/MIA was dropped.

In December 2004, ATA entered into an agreement with Southwest Airlines to transfer six gates at Chicago Midway International Airport and 27% of non-voting stock in exchange for a cash influx and codeshare agreement.

All SWA "owned" were the gates and only 27% of Stock, certainly not a full ownership of ATA.

The ownership of ATA did not happen until 2008 when they got the LGA slots.

Alex
Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
 
User avatar
TVNWZ
Posts: 1717
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:28 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:43 pm

Wait a minute.

Isn't the reason airTran is in SRQ to begin with was they were bribed by a subsidy. So you bribe an airline to come and then get upset when the bribe proves insufficient to begin with? And if you have to bribe an airline to begin with doesn't that say something about the viability of the area to begin with?

Isn't this the free market at work? Drive to Tampa.
 
CMHSRQ
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:49 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:28 pm

Quoting boslax (Reply 12):
Is the SRQ director that arrogant to believe he is afforded special treatment. Ask the other 15 stations or so that Southwest/AirTran are eliminating if they got a visit from a WN executive. Probably not.

Dude, read the article. SRQ paid FL 75k, for marketing in the in flight mag. They also 250,000K more in airport operating refunds. Is it right to accept that money then leave????

Quoting ScottB (Reply 13):
I suppose the question which must be asked is, "Why didn't WN want to fly there?" If we take "WN had it in for SRQ" off the table, I'd presume that the reasons would consist of some combination of small air travel market size, low yields, and large seasonal variations in traffic. Yields for FL on monopoly non-stop routes to SRQ from BWI & MDW were lower than WN's yields on routes to TPA from the same airports where they did face competition. FL's service profile at SRQ was/is highly seasonal, with 8 daily departures in the peak season and 3 in the slow season.

EYW's seasonality isn't anywhere near as extreme, and yields are much, much higher.

Small market size, yet they keep GRR, EYW, and numerous other locations. EYW has 2 flights a day. Checking the yields for TPA-MDW and SRQ-MDW. SRQ's yield is higher.
The voice of moderation
 
ScottB
Posts: 5505
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:45 pm

Quoting cmhsrq (Reply 16):
Small market size, yet they keep GRR, EYW, and numerous other locations.

GRR & EYW don't have the same extreme seasonality as SRQ.

Quoting cmhsrq (Reply 16):
They also 250,000K more in airport operating refunds. Is it right to accept that money then leave????

They already paid the airport the $250K in terminal rents, apron fees, and landing fees over the previous fiscal year. They're getting money FL overpaid back.
 
syncmaster
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 9:55 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:55 pm

Quoting cmhsrq (Reply 16):
Small market size, yet they keep GRR,

First of all, GRR is hardly "small." The greater Grand Rapids area (keeping in mind that GRR is the only significantly sized airport serving the market) has a population of over 1.3 million people and virtually no competition from other area airports (i.e. AZO).

Secondly, how many other areas do you see WN serving multiple airports in a metro area with more than one airport? WN has a significant operation in place at TPA and there is a good chance that it simply operates more efficiently than SRQ does/would.
 
usflyguy
Posts: 1562
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:29 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:59 pm

GRR and EYW aren't with an hour or hour and half of two other SWA airports with quite a bit of service. If SRQ were able to be profitable without canabalizing TPA or RSW, I'm sure it would have stuck around.
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
 
LoneStarMike
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:06 pm

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but the article mentions that WN/FL is still on the hook for terminal & gate rent until sometime in 2014. So if another airline were to come in and use the space that AirTran is using now, would the new airline be subleasing that space from WN/FL?

LoneStarMike
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13808
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:46 pm

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 8):

145. Always full, usually overbooked, but because of distance and routing not profitable enough and not overwater rated so had to hug coast. But a 110 seater would be overkill.

Cle w 145 was even worse.

[quote=727LOVER,reply=3]

2 A320s to JFK w low fares on top of COs service was flooding the market. Did so right during economic downturn where traffic dropped off. Now that traffic has picked up overall, B6 charge $500 or more RT, while charging $300 RT to LAX. They undercut CO, forced them out, then bumped up prices. Classic AA DFW style move.

The point is, UA can go in and charge $350 RT to EWR or IAD or ORD and grab traffic back with A319s and E75s. And they can pick up the west of the country again from IAH with a more efficient, right sized E75 on the route, something CO couldn't do. UA needs 4 flights minimum to make the costs work, but likely could enter with 5 and perform well (with FL gone). Doubt they will ever return the SRQ-TPA prop flights though.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
727LOVER
Topic Author
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:50 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 13):
Yields for FL on monopoly non-stop routes to SRQ from BWI & MDW were lower than WN's yields on routes to TPA from the same airports where they did face competition
Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 14):
Southwest Airlines have NEVER screwed SRQ, why are people saying that?

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.......its a DUCK!!!!.....or at least its FISHY

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 15):
Isn't the reason airTran is in SRQ to begin with was they were bribed by a subsidy. So you bribe an airline to come and then get upset when the bribe proves insufficient to begin with?

Yeah???? Read this !!!

Airtran Doing Extremely Well In SRQ (by Cmhsrq Jan 7 2005 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=1895212&searchid=1895816&s=airtran+SRQ#ID1895816

and THIS !!
Interesting Comments From AirTran's VP About SRQ (by Oceanic Dec 23 2004 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=1874844&searchid=1876347&s=SRQ+FL#ID1876347






some memories!!!


Airtran Goes With Sarasota! (by Njdevilsin03 Oct 4 2004 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=1764840&searchid=1774741&s=airtran+SRQ#ID1774741


AirTran's SRQ Debut (by Oceanic Dec 18 2004 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=1868603&searchid=1868603&s=airtran+SRQ#ID1868603
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
mli717fan
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:30 pm

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:26 pm

This is kind of unrelated, but still some what... With G4, F9, and NK stepping in where FL is leaving off, does anyone think they will make a play for SRQ?

G4 tried a MCO focus city, they ended up giving up on it, but maybe SRQ would be a good way for them to merge their PIE and PGD operations. I know people who fly to PIE and drive south from there. SRQ is only 44 miles from PIE and 48 miles from PGD, so it might be a good compromise. Their PIE operation is flourishing, but it seems like the PGD operation hasn't really taken off.

F9 and NK also have operations in RSW and TPA, so they are also less likely to run to SRQ, but I think there is certainly a market here that is open for someone.
 
CitrusCritter
Posts: 770
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:36 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:04 am

I could have sworn WN told Federal regulators as well as all the stakeholders and shareholders in this process that they weren't going to shutter a significant number of stations and that primarily stations like PHF and DFW that duplicated existing WN ops would take the cuts. Instead, we've seen a number of small communities negatively affected by the merger. This is why merger regulation needs significant reform - WN misrepresented their plans to get it approved, then they just go ahead and do whatever they want to the detriment of those the regulations are supposed to protect.
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5288
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:45 am

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 10):
Though you can't deny that when considering other cities they kept, leaving SRQ makes little or no sense.

I count four strikes against SRQ.

1) Yields are weak.
2) Traffic is overwhelmingly leisure.
3) Proximity to an existing market, TPA.
4) Traffic is seasonal.

Markets like GRR and EYW don't have that many strikes against them.

Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 24):
I could have sworn WN told Federal regulators as well as all the stakeholders and shareholders in this process that they weren't going to shutter a significant number of stations and that primarily stations like PHF and DFW that duplicated existing WN ops would take the cuts.

SRQ duplicates TPA in large part, so WN was consistent. I might also note that WN has had a tough time making RSW work. So, if WN has a tough time with RSW, do you really think SRQ will be much better.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 21):
UA needs 4 flights minimum to make the costs work, but likely could enter with 5 and perform well (with FL gone).

UA wants high-yield business traffic...not low-yield tourists. I doubt they'll want SRQ unless they are heavily subsidized.
 
727LOVER
Topic Author
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:40 am

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 25):

How about reading that 2nd thread in reply 22...............note FL VP's words
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5288
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:12 am

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 26):
How about reading that 2nd thread in reply 22...............note FL VP's words

Is it 2004??

If business travel was so strong from SRQ, you'd have service from AA and UA. The fact that those two carriers have stayed away speaks volumes.
 
atrude777
Posts: 4258
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:23 pm

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:40 am

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 22):

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.......its a DUCK!!!!.....or at least its FISHY

Fishy or not..it's the truth. Southwest did not screw SRQ the first time around, that was all ATA's doing which I will reiterate again...

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 14):

The decision of ATA not expanding at SRQ along with MIA was the decision of ATA alone. Was there a codeshare in place between the two? Yes, but Southwest was NOT in ownership of ATA in 2005 when SRQ/MIA was dropped.

In December 2004, ATA entered into an agreement with Southwest Airlines to transfer six gates at Chicago Midway International Airport and 27% of non-voting stock in exchange for a cash influx and codeshare agreement.

All SWA "owned" were the gates and only 27% of Stock, certainly not a full ownership of ATA.

The ownership of ATA did not happen until 2008 when they got the LGA slots.
Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 26):

How about reading that 2nd thread in reply 22...............note FL VP's words

I read it too, and I back up FlyPNS, you're using an article from 2004. That was 8 years ago, times have completely changed so much. What someone said in 2004 is no longer relevant.

Alex
Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
 
727LOVER
Topic Author
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:17 pm

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 28):
Fishy or not..it's the truth. Southwest did not screw SRQ the first time around, that was all ATA's doing which I will reiterate again...

Fair enough......BUT, thats the way the media makes it sound, same thing with ATA's pullout of PIE

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 27):
If business travel was so strong from SRQ, you'd have service from AA and UA. The fact that those two carriers have stayed away speaks volumes.

I never said SRQ was BOS, NYC, or LAX.....I was pointing out that there I S a business community, albeit not a great one, although,.....maybe that's because there are not that many flights. The point was NOW as back then, the market was UNDERESTIMATED

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 28):
I read it too, and I back up FlyPNS, you're using an article from 2004. That was 8 years ago, times have completely changed so much.

Well YEAH,......there was a RECESSION

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 25):
I might also note that WN has had a tough time making RSW work.

But they're still there right??????

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 25):
So, if WN has a tough time with RSW, do you really think SRQ will be much better.

Yep.....again....UNDERESTIMATED

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 25):
1) Yields are weak.
2) Traffic is overwhelmingly leisure.
3) Proximity to an existing market, TPA.
4) Traffic is seasonal.

RSW has 3 out of 4 dont they? Where can I look at yield information for myself?



But I guess this is really the key:

While Southwest says "we put our planes where the people are," officials from AirTran — our partners of eight years — explained on the phone that the "ground service cost" to operate Southwest is about 60 percent higher than it is for AirTran.
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
User avatar
DLX737200
Posts: 1627
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 6:42 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:27 pm

Southwest saw SRQ as a market they couldn't succeed in with TPA and RSW so close by. Airlines are a business, not a charity and the quicker the community of Sarasota realized this, the better. It's business, not personal.

I'll drive to TPA or RSW for my beloved WN! Go Southwest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:54 pm

Noooooo, an AIRLINE company is DISINGENUOUS!? Whaaat?!

That NEVER happens!
This Website Censors Me
 
CMHSRQ
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:49 am

RE: SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article

Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:14 pm

You can pull fare, yield, and # of passengers from DOT filings.

The average FL fare from SRQ to MDW was $145.32, MDW-SRQ $148.38, Q1,2,3 2011
The average FL fare from TPA to MDW was $126.67, MDW-TPA $125.94

Do you think UA would be interested in that especially if SRQ threw in incentives?
The voice of moderation

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos