md3
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:51 pm

AirFiero wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
That's great. But AS currently has no plans to see a 737MAX touch the DAL station, once they're delivered.

Just pointing out that using that aircraft as the reason to repeal or modify this act is flawed thinking.


But the idea you might be overlooking is that if exemptions to the Wright Amendment are available if an airline uses a new technology airplane, might this plans suddenly change?


Sure, but that would be the same Q&A for any law anywhere; "If law XXX fundamentally changes, might the effected parties change their actions?" Sure! Then it becomes a completely theoretical question of will a law be changed?
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:01 pm

md3 wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
That's great. But AS currently has no plans to see a 737MAX touch the DAL station, once they're delivered.

Just pointing out that using that aircraft as the reason to repeal or modify this act is flawed thinking.


But the idea you might be overlooking is that if exemptions to the Wright Amendment are available if an airline uses a new technology airplane, might this plans suddenly change?


Sure, but that would be the same Q&A for any law anywhere; "If law XXX fundamentally changes, might the effected parties change their actions?" Sure! Then it becomes a completely theoretical question of will a law be changed?


Ok, so I guess we shouldn't bother discussing it. Sorry I asked the question in the first place.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15369
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:14 pm

AirFiero wrote:
md3 wrote:
AirFiero wrote:

But the idea you might be overlooking is that if exemptions to the Wright Amendment are available if an airline uses a new technology airplane, might this plans suddenly change?


Sure, but that would be the same Q&A for any law anywhere; "If law XXX fundamentally changes, might the effected parties change their actions?" Sure! Then it becomes a completely theoretical question of will a law be changed?


Ok, so I guess we shouldn't bother discussing it. Sorry I asked the question in the first place.



Please don't apologize for asking questions; that's how you (and I, and everyone else here) learn things. My point was simply that making the assumption that a new 737 variant entering service is not likely to be seen as a way around the law, so carriers won't change their fleet plans or route and/or capacity planning based on that.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
milemaster
Posts: 1068
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 10:19 am

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:14 pm

enilria wrote:
diverdave wrote:
enilria wrote:
EDIT: So that was not in the OP. It is this just posted doc. I'm very surprised as you can see. Well, goo luck to them. Less capacity will help. Not sure it will make it profitable, though, and it's a long flight on an E175 compared to the other options.


Just speaking for myself, a long flight on an E175 is just fine with me.

So, here's why I think the LGA/DCA will not end well. I will preface this by saying, I assume they are precluded from using the AA code at DAL for at least three reasons. If that is not the case then throw this all out as that changes things dramatically.

#1 First, VX did not do well. They had two advantages. They had (at least according to the award sites) the best inflight product in the market. They also were very cheap. They didn't want to be that cheap, but even if AS pursues a price strategy as well the costs of an E175 per seat are MUCH higher than VX's costs were, plus AS costs are much higher than VX on top of the airplane related costs. So, they either lose more money or raise the price considerably.

#2 Raising the price (which is the primary goal of going to E175s as they try to fix the route profitability) will drive away the existing customer base, particularly when coupled with...

#3 Moving from what was pretty routinely considered the best inflight product in the market, to what will be certainly a worse than average product with the E75s. I see there are some CR9s in these markets at DFW, so it will not be the worst product, but under any scenario it is definitely a large drop in product quality and that also will lose a lot of passengers.

#4 Love it or hate it, the Virgin brand was worth something, and it's basically gone.

#5 Having said all of that, it's basically a fresh start and a clean slate for AS in DAL. They will bring a percentage of the VX passengers over, but a lot will be lost. They won't have the product breadth frequent flyer lock-in like they will have in SFO/LAX because they are so small in DAL/DFW compared to AA/WN. LAX and moreso SFO are completely different situations where they have viable breadth of service.

#6 The Alaska brand is weaker statistically than the Virgin brand in DFW/DAL. What statistics you ask? If you look at the portion of tickets sold under the VX brand with DAL origin in DB1B, it's 38% of seats, and about half of passengers. That means the brand is well enough established so that they are not dependent on selling in LAX/SFO/LGA/DCA, etc to prop up weakness in DAL. Sure, they had to use price to get there, but still those are healthy statistics for VX going against AA and WN in their hub. The numbers are much worse for Alaska. It's only 27% of DFW originating tickets are sold on the AS brand, and only about a third of passengers. The reasons are that they have been leaning on SEA/PDX/etc markets to sell tickets, coupled with relying on the AA code share in DFW actually hobbled the development of their own brand in DFW.

Bottom line, if they truly stick with DAL-LGA/DCA it will be expensive and take a long time to make profitable. I guess the question is what were the other options, and it is possible this was still the best one given that they were probably loathe to help DL in DAL or anywhere else? Doing MSP/STL/MCI/DTW/MKE-DCA/LGA would have been no day at the beach either. So, I'm not saying it wasn't the best decision available, but I don't think it will be a profitable one for at least a very long time.



This is a great post. The AAG folks apparently feel their brand has such amazing potential in the Dallas market that pulling the best infllight product off a route and replacing it with the standard utilitarian regional jet Alaska flies will somehow equal success. The only perceived incentive for anyone to choose AS over AA is that AAdvantage members would earn some reduced mileage on flights arriving/departing on these routes they would otherwise get full credit for on on mainline AA aircraft located 16 miles away at DFW.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:13 pm

milemaster wrote:
enilria wrote:
diverdave wrote:

Just speaking for myself, a long flight on an E175 is just fine with me.

So, here's why I think the LGA/DCA will not end well. I will preface this by saying, I assume they are precluded from using the AA code at DAL for at least three reasons. If that is not the case then throw this all out as that changes things dramatically.

#1 First, VX did not do well. They had two advantages. They had (at least according to the award sites) the best inflight product in the market. They also were very cheap. They didn't want to be that cheap, but even if AS pursues a price strategy as well the costs of an E175 per seat are MUCH higher than VX's costs were, plus AS costs are much higher than VX on top of the airplane related costs. So, they either lose more money or raise the price considerably.

#2 Raising the price (which is the primary goal of going to E175s as they try to fix the route profitability) will drive away the existing customer base, particularly when coupled with...

#3 Moving from what was pretty routinely considered the best inflight product in the market, to what will be certainly a worse than average product with the E75s. I see there are some CR9s in these markets at DFW, so it will not be the worst product, but under any scenario it is definitely a large drop in product quality and that also will lose a lot of passengers.

#4 Love it or hate it, the Virgin brand was worth something, and it's basically gone.

#5 Having said all of that, it's basically a fresh start and a clean slate for AS in DAL. They will bring a percentage of the VX passengers over, but a lot will be lost. They won't have the product breadth frequent flyer lock-in like they will have in SFO/LAX because they are so small in DAL/DFW compared to AA/WN. LAX and moreso SFO are completely different situations where they have viable breadth of service.

#6 The Alaska brand is weaker statistically than the Virgin brand in DFW/DAL. What statistics you ask? If you look at the portion of tickets sold under the VX brand with DAL origin in DB1B, it's 38% of seats, and about half of passengers. That means the brand is well enough established so that they are not dependent on selling in LAX/SFO/LGA/DCA, etc to prop up weakness in DAL. Sure, they had to use price to get there, but still those are healthy statistics for VX going against AA and WN in their hub. The numbers are much worse for Alaska. It's only 27% of DFW originating tickets are sold on the AS brand, and only about a third of passengers. The reasons are that they have been leaning on SEA/PDX/etc markets to sell tickets, coupled with relying on the AA code share in DFW actually hobbled the development of their own brand in DFW.

Bottom line, if they truly stick with DAL-LGA/DCA it will be expensive and take a long time to make profitable. I guess the question is what were the other options, and it is possible this was still the best one given that they were probably loathe to help DL in DAL or anywhere else? Doing MSP/STL/MCI/DTW/MKE-DCA/LGA would have been no day at the beach either. So, I'm not saying it wasn't the best decision available, but I don't think it will be a profitable one for at least a very long time.



This is a great post. The AAG folks apparently feel their brand has such amazing potential in the Dallas market that pulling the best infllight product off a route and replacing it with the standard utilitarian regional jet Alaska flies will somehow equal success. The only perceived incentive for anyone to choose AS over AA is that AAdvantage members would earn some reduced mileage on flights arriving/departing on these routes they would otherwise get full credit for on on mainline AA aircraft located 16 miles away at DFW.


Not sure what your problem with AAG folks is, but I would think replacing the A320 with the E175 that's just half it's size might end up being a net positive. There are literally hundreds of them flying around, including LGA-DCA - the world continues to turn.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2452
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:56 pm

Do ground handling contracts have to be renegotiated? Seeing how it's a different airline with different equipment?
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:51 pm

My god, if AS has such a horrible product then why are they one of the most profitable airlines in the world? You'd think that customers would be booking away from them in droves if they were so sub-standard but somehow they keep growing and providing horrible service to more and more destinations.
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 4975
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:22 am

hiflyeras wrote:
My god, if AS has such a horrible product then why are they one of the most profitable airlines in the world? You'd think that customers would be booking away from them in droves if they were so sub-standard but somehow they keep growing and providing horrible service to more and more destinations.


Are you insinuating that AS has one of the worst customer service in the airline industry (I hope not). Or are you responding to Enrilia's anti-AS/pro-DL comments earlier?
 
milemaster
Posts: 1068
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 10:19 am

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:49 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
milemaster wrote:
enilria wrote:
So, here's why I think the LGA/DCA will not end well. I will preface this by saying, I assume they are precluded from using the AA code at DAL for at least three reasons. If that is not the case then throw this all out as that changes things dramatically.

#1 First, VX did not do well. They had two advantages. They had (at least according to the award sites) the best inflight product in the market. They also were very cheap. They didn't want to be that cheap, but even if AS pursues a price strategy as well the costs of an E175 per seat are MUCH higher than VX's costs were, plus AS costs are much higher than VX on top of the airplane related costs. So, they either lose more money or raise the price considerably.

#2 Raising the price (which is the primary goal of going to E175s as they try to fix the route profitability) will drive away the existing customer base, particularly when coupled with...

#3 Moving from what was pretty routinely considered the best inflight product in the market, to what will be certainly a worse than average product with the E75s. I see there are some CR9s in these markets at DFW, so it will not be the worst product, but under any scenario it is definitely a large drop in product quality and that also will lose a lot of passengers.

#4 Love it or hate it, the Virgin brand was worth something, and it's basically gone.

#5 Having said all of that, it's basically a fresh start and a clean slate for AS in DAL. They will bring a percentage of the VX passengers over, but a lot will be lost. They won't have the product breadth frequent flyer lock-in like they will have in SFO/LAX because they are so small in DAL/DFW compared to AA/WN. LAX and moreso SFO are completely different situations where they have viable breadth of service.

#6 The Alaska brand is weaker statistically than the Virgin brand in DFW/DAL. What statistics you ask? If you look at the portion of tickets sold under the VX brand with DAL origin in DB1B, it's 38% of seats, and about half of passengers. That means the brand is well enough established so that they are not dependent on selling in LAX/SFO/LGA/DCA, etc to prop up weakness in DAL. Sure, they had to use price to get there, but still those are healthy statistics for VX going against AA and WN in their hub. The numbers are much worse for Alaska. It's only 27% of DFW originating tickets are sold on the AS brand, and only about a third of passengers. The reasons are that they have been leaning on SEA/PDX/etc markets to sell tickets, coupled with relying on the AA code share in DFW actually hobbled the development of their own brand in DFW.

Bottom line, if they truly stick with DAL-LGA/DCA it will be expensive and take a long time to make profitable. I guess the question is what were the other options, and it is possible this was still the best one given that they were probably loathe to help DL in DAL or anywhere else? Doing MSP/STL/MCI/DTW/MKE-DCA/LGA would have been no day at the beach either. So, I'm not saying it wasn't the best decision available, but I don't think it will be a profitable one for at least a very long time.



This is a great post. The AAG folks apparently feel their brand has such amazing potential in the Dallas market that pulling the best infllight product off a route and replacing it with the standard utilitarian regional jet Alaska flies will somehow equal success. The only perceived incentive for anyone to choose AS over AA is that AAdvantage members would earn some reduced mileage on flights arriving/departing on these routes they would otherwise get full credit for on on mainline AA aircraft located 16 miles away at DFW.


Not sure what your problem with AAG folks is, but I would think replacing the A320 with the E175 that's just half it's size might end up being a net positive. There are literally hundreds of them flying around, including LGA-DCA - the world continues to turn.


So I have a problem with AAG? Do you think the current Dallas VX passenger base is going to pay a premium over the current average VX fare paid only to fly on a regional jet devoid of the inflight product that drove said passengers to VX to begin with?

These are by and large AA and WN passengers that VX managed to lure by offering a better product, not by their FF program or routemap. Throwing a standard vanilla E75 on the same route with higher costs is not a winning formula when there are the largest of the large incumbents with huge nonstop route options for Dallas/DFW passengers.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:13 am

milemaster wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
milemaster wrote:


This is a great post. The AAG folks apparently feel their brand has such amazing potential in the Dallas market that pulling the best infllight product off a route and replacing it with the standard utilitarian regional jet Alaska flies will somehow equal success. The only perceived incentive for anyone to choose AS over AA is that AAdvantage members would earn some reduced mileage on flights arriving/departing on these routes they would otherwise get full credit for on on mainline AA aircraft located 16 miles away at DFW.


Not sure what your problem with AAG folks is, but I would think replacing the A320 with the E175 that's just half it's size might end up being a net positive. There are literally hundreds of them flying around, including LGA-DCA - the world continues to turn.


So I have a problem with AAG? Do you think the current Dallas VX passenger base is going to pay a premium over the current average VX fare paid only to fly on a regional jet devoid of the inflight product that drove said passengers to VX to begin with?

These are by and large AA and WN passengers that VX managed to lure by offering a better product, not by their FF program or routemap. Throwing a standard vanilla E75 on the same route with higher costs is not a winning formula when there are the largest of the large incumbents with huge nonstop route options for Dallas/DFW passengers.


Yes, I think you have a problem with AAG, but that really doesn't matter. What I do think though, is that:

1. It's possible for more than two carriers to compete in a given market.
2. The E175 is a perfectly acceptable aircraft to many people (in my case, almost preferable).
3. It allows them to maximize the two gates at DAL by fitting in a few more flights a day.

May work - may not. I just don't see the need for sarcasm towards AAG for doing what they think is right in the market, and in the big picture of what they are trying to accomplish.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
phluser
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:49 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:22 am

milemaster wrote:
Do you think the current Dallas VX passenger base is going to pay a premium over the current average VX fare paid only to fly on a regional jet devoid of the inflight product that drove said passengers to VX to begin with?


AS probably expects that as it raises the DAL-LGA/DCA fares, WN and AA will raise fares as well, thus the same week $120 one-way fare will no longer be around on any carrier. The spoiler is NK that has a sizeable Dallas presence at DFW, that AA and WN might keep low fares to match NK, and then AS's fares will just seem way overpriced.

AS wants to reduce it's exposure on DAL-LGA/DCA as VX wasn't performing well. My guess is AS will give it one year or less and won't stick on the routes it it's not working to their expectation. Aside from trying to sell or trade LGA/DCA slots, it could just offer DCA-ORD (1/2 the distance of DCA-DAL with an ever abundant number of people that travel between DC area and Chicago easily able to fill seats) and LGA-MCO.

JetBlue is selling LGA-MCO tickets over $200 next week, while AS and WN are selling LGA-DAL tickets for $150, and it's not just April because of Spring Break but fares like that been like that for months, where I can find higher Jetblue fares to MCO out of LGA, than fares to DAL, while Florida has the bad reputation for being low yielding. I'm sure JetBlue is making good on it's LGA slots for something so basic as MCO.
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 3267
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:49 pm

phluser wrote:
milemaster wrote:
Do you think the current Dallas VX passenger base is going to pay a premium over the current average VX fare paid only to fly on a regional jet devoid of the inflight product that drove said passengers to VX to begin with?


AS probably expects that as it raises the DAL-LGA/DCA fares, WN and AA will raise fares as well, thus the same week $120 one-way fare will no longer be around on any carrier. The spoiler is NK that has a sizeable Dallas presence at DFW, that AA and WN might keep low fares to match NK, and then AS's fares will just seem way overpriced.

AS wants to reduce it's exposure on DAL-LGA/DCA as VX wasn't performing well. My guess is AS will give it one year or less and won't stick on the routes it it's not working to their expectation. Aside from trying to sell or trade LGA/DCA slots, it could just offer DCA-ORD (1/2 the distance of DCA-DAL with an ever abundant number of people that travel between DC area and Chicago easily able to fill seats) and LGA-MCO.

JetBlue is selling LGA-MCO tickets over $200 next week, while AS and WN are selling LGA-DAL tickets for $150, and it's not just April because of Spring Break but fares like that been like that for months, where I can find higher Jetblue fares to MCO out of LGA, than fares to DAL, while Florida has the bad reputation for being low yielding. I'm sure JetBlue is making good on it's LGA slots for something so basic as MCO.


In Q3 2016, the average fare on LGA-MCO was $166 (with B6 the largest and low-fare carrier, with an average fare of $160), and LGA-DAL was $159 (with WN the largest and low-fare carrier, and an average fare of $151). LGA-DAL is 44% further than LGA-MCO yet commands an average fare that is 4% lower.

Perhaps the decreased capacity will help yields, but agreed that there are better options for the limited LGA slot portfolio. Although, with VX dropping JFK-FLL to make way for PDX-JFK, it doesn't appear AS is ready to try something too far outside the box in NYC.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15369
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:04 pm

enilria wrote:
Bottom line, if they truly stick with DAL-LGA/DCA it will be expensive and take a long time to make profitable.


...unless of course the currently unprofitable VX load factors (on big, higher-cost A320s) translate into profitable AS load factors (on far smaller E175s).
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:01 pm

wedgetail737 wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:
My god, if AS has such a horrible product then why are they one of the most profitable airlines in the world? You'd think that customers would be booking away from them in droves if they were so sub-standard but somehow they keep growing and providing horrible service to more and more destinations.


Are you insinuating that AS has one of the worst customer service in the airline industry (I hope not). Or are you responding to Enrilia's anti-AS/pro-DL comments earlier?


I was responding to the AS haters in this thread. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it gets old when it keeps spewing out from the same mouths.
 
cschleic
Posts: 1670
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:16 pm

wedgetail737 wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:
My god, if AS has such a horrible product then why are they one of the most profitable airlines in the world? You'd think that customers would be booking away from them in droves if they were so sub-standard but somehow they keep growing and providing horrible service to more and more destinations.


Are you insinuating that AS has one of the worst customer service in the airline industry (I hope not). Or are you responding to Enrilia's anti-AS/pro-DL comments earlier?


It doesn't sound like hiflyeras is saying that at all. I think the point was, how could AS be such a successful company if they have such lousy service?

Clearly some posters really really don't like the AS / VX deal. That's ok. But the elimination of one brand is what happens when one company acquires another. That's how corporate M&A works. There was a lot of discussion on other threads that made it sound like the world was coming to an end because all of VX's Bay Area tech and hipster customers were losing their airline. AS may lose some customers, but they'll pick up some, and they're adding routes from those cities. VX's IFE or eight first class seats weren't the only reason they had passengers at DAL. Lots of airlines don't have IFE or first class seats. There aren't a lot of choices at DAL so anyone there has a good chance.

As certainly wasn't going to get rid of the DAL gates. If so, they would have been gone forever. AS can do that later if it doesn't work out. But might as well try for now. Will the aircraft change work? Maybe, maybe not. But overall, on my, I've never seen so much discussion about...two gates at one airport.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 653
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:55 pm

atypical wrote:
enilria wrote:
I don't think they are going to give up those gates until the sublease ends and AA retakes control.


When is that? 'Is there any reasonable possibility that DAL gates open up for AS at that point?

That sounds like a very good reason to continue leaseing capacity from SkyWest instead of building on the assumption of continued service out of DAL.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:06 am

NameOmitted wrote:
atypical wrote:
I don't think they are going to give up those gates until the sublease ends and AA retakes control.


When is that? 'Is there any reasonable possibility that DAL gates open up for AS at that point?

That sounds like a very good reason to continue leaseing capacity from SkyWest instead of building on the assumption of continued service out of DAL.


The divestiture of the DAL gates was apart of the AA/US merger settlement. In most cases AA/US would have been required to fully divest the gates but since WARA made any requirement to divest the lease illegal a sublease under court approval was settled. When Scott Kirby was with AA he stated he regretted not fighting harder to retain the DAL gates, since he is no longer there I don't think anyone knows what the current management thinks of those gates. In any case, the sublease is still years from expiring (I believe the term was at least 10 years) and AA management's view of the gates now is not indicative of their view in the future. I don't think AS will schedule out of DAL with the sublease as a factor until the expiration of the sublease is imminent, and maybe it will never be a factor.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:10 am

jetbluefan1 wrote:
phluser wrote:
milemaster wrote:
Do you think the current Dallas VX passenger base is going to pay a premium over the current average VX fare paid only to fly on a regional jet devoid of the inflight product that drove said passengers to VX to begin with?


AS probably expects that as it raises the DAL-LGA/DCA fares, WN and AA will raise fares as well, thus the same week $120 one-way fare will no longer be around on any carrier. The spoiler is NK that has a sizeable Dallas presence at DFW, that AA and WN might keep low fares to match NK, and then AS's fares will just seem way overpriced.

AS wants to reduce it's exposure on DAL-LGA/DCA as VX wasn't performing well. My guess is AS will give it one year or less and won't stick on the routes it it's not working to their expectation. Aside from trying to sell or trade LGA/DCA slots, it could just offer DCA-ORD (1/2 the distance of DCA-DAL with an ever abundant number of people that travel between DC area and Chicago easily able to fill seats) and LGA-MCO.

JetBlue is selling LGA-MCO tickets over $200 next week, while AS and WN are selling LGA-DAL tickets for $150, and it's not just April because of Spring Break but fares like that been like that for months, where I can find higher Jetblue fares to MCO out of LGA, than fares to DAL, while Florida has the bad reputation for being low yielding. I'm sure JetBlue is making good on it's LGA slots for something so basic as MCO.


In Q3 2016, the average fare on LGA-MCO was $166 (with B6 the largest and low-fare carrier, with an average fare of $160), and LGA-DAL was $159 (with WN the largest and low-fare carrier, and an average fare of $151). LGA-DAL is 44% further than LGA-MCO yet commands an average fare that is 4% lower.

Perhaps the decreased capacity will help yields, but agreed that there are better options for the limited LGA slot portfolio. Although, with VX dropping JFK-FLL to make way for PDX-JFK, it doesn't appear AS is ready to try something too far outside the box in NYC.


And people scoff when I claim airfares about has low has 15-20yr's ago..
 
grbauc
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:14 am

atypical wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:
atypical wrote:
I don't think they are going to give up those gates until the sublease ends and AA retakes control.


When is that? 'Is there any reasonable possibility that DAL gates open up for AS at that point?

That sounds like a very good reason to continue leaseing capacity from SkyWest instead of building on the assumption of continued service out of DAL.


The divestiture of the DAL gates was apart of the AA/US merger settlement. In most cases AA/US would have been required to fully divest the gates but since WARA made any requirement to divest the lease illegal a sublease under court approval was settled. When Scott Kirby was with AA he stated he regretted not fighting harder to retain the DAL gates, since he is no longer there I don't think anyone knows what the current management thinks of those gates. In any case, the sublease is still years from expiring (I believe the term was at least 10 years) and AA management's view of the gates now is not indicative of their view in the future. I don't think AS will schedule out of DAL with the sublease as a factor until the expiration of the sublease is imminent, and maybe it will never be a factor.


Spot on!!! :bigthumbsup: :bigthumbsup: :bigthumbsup:
 
cjpark
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:54 pm

jplatts wrote:
In addition, Congress can and should repeal the 20-gate limit at Dallas Love Field provided for under subsection (a) of section 5 of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006. The 20-gate limit is no longer necessary because Southwest and Alaska will both be operating Boeing 737 MAX aircraft which are quieter, more fuel efficient, and emit less pollution than the commercial airplanes available at the time that the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 was enacted, and the aviation study that led to the 20-gate limit at Dallas Love, which was conducted prior to Boeing announcing the availability of the 737 MAX and Airbus announcing the availability of the A320neo, was based on the environmental impacts with Southwest operating 737-300 and 737-700 aircraft. Southwest will no longer operate 737-300 aircraft after September 30th and will begin operating 737 MAX 8 planes starting on October 1st.


Two questions for you.

1. Why should Congress repeal the 20-gate limit at DAL?

2. Are you aware that the reason for the 20 gate limit was not air and noise pollution from aircraft?
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
jplatts
Posts: 2660
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:44 pm

cjpark wrote:
jplatts wrote:
In addition, Congress can and should repeal the 20-gate limit at Dallas Love Field provided for under subsection (a) of section 5 of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006. The 20-gate limit is no longer necessary because Southwest and Alaska will both be operating Boeing 737 MAX aircraft which are quieter, more fuel efficient, and emit less pollution than the commercial airplanes available at the time that the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 was enacted, and the aviation study that led to the 20-gate limit at Dallas Love, which was conducted prior to Boeing announcing the availability of the 737 MAX and Airbus announcing the availability of the A320neo, was based on the environmental impacts with Southwest operating 737-300 and 737-700 aircraft. Southwest will no longer operate 737-300 aircraft after September 30th and will begin operating 737 MAX 8 planes starting on October 1st.


Two questions for you.

1. Why should Congress repeal the 20-gate limit at DAL?

2. Are you aware that the reason for the 20 gate limit was not air and noise pollution from aircraft?


Congress should repeal the 20-gate limit at DAL due to increasing demand for air travel to both Dallas airports and because it is no longer simply about Southwest Airlines with Alaska's plans to expand at Dallas Love Field through its merger with Virgin America and with Delta operating nonstops between Dallas Love Field and Atlanta.

While the 20-gate limit was not imposed solely because of air and noise pollution impacts, the DMJM Aviation study that led to the 20-gate limit at Dallas Love Field was actually mentioned in the 5-party agreement executed between Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, the City of Dallas, the City of Fort Worth, and the DFW International Airport Board.
 
Dallas
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:37 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:35 pm

I don't want to get too off-topic, but I am still confused with DAL and "fully utilized" gates. If VX only currently has 13 flights through 2 gates (when it should be 10x per gate), why was DL never forced to use VX's gates? I would think DAL would have enforced that since WN is using 180 flights for 18 gates (10x) and is fully allocated, while VX is not. It would make more sense for 18 flights (VX+DL) for 2 gates and 180 WN flights for 18 gates. I'm just curious why that never happened and now AS/VX is back to growing again at DAL.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:51 pm

Dallas wrote:
I don't want to get too off-topic, but I am still confused with DAL and "fully utilized" gates. If VX only currently has 13 flights through 2 gates (when it should be 10x per gate), why was DL never forced to use VX's gates? I would think DAL would have enforced that since WN is using 180 flights for 18 gates (10x) and is fully allocated, while VX is not. It would make more sense for 18 flights (VX+DL) for 2 gates and 180 WN flights for 18 gates. I'm just curious why that never happened and now AS/VX is back to growing again at DAL.


I do not think this is about utilization but times. If there is a time conflict then the utilization is immaterial. DL certainly cannot get priority on AS gates and to blow up DL's schedule is an effective eviction from the airport. DL had/has a schedule that did not impact WN's ops, just their wanted expansion.

In the long tern I don't see WN retaining the UA subleased gates, but that is a whole other can of worms.
 
cjpark
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:46 am

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:55 am

jplatts wrote:

Congress should repeal the 20-gate limit at DAL due to increasing demand for air travel to both Dallas airports and because it is no longer simply about Southwest Airlines with Alaska's plans to expand at Dallas Love Field through its merger with Virgin America and with Delta operating nonstops between Dallas Love Field and Atlanta.

While the 20-gate limit was not imposed solely because of air and noise pollution impacts, the DMJM Aviation study that led to the 20-gate limit at Dallas Love Field was actually mentioned in the 5-party agreement executed between Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, the City of Dallas, the City of Fort Worth, and the DFW International Airport Board.


What increasing demand for air travel to DAL? What other airlines besides the three that are now at DAL want to serve the airport? What are the names of the other airlines that have recently petitioned the city of Dallas for access to the airport? For that matter what new airlines are unable to obtain access to DFW?

You mentioned the DMJM Aviation study but did you actually read the study and understand the conclusions reported? The reason why the City of Dallas insisted that the airport was capped at 20 gates was to limit the impact a non restricted Love Field would have on the area immediately surrounding the airport. Remember Love Field is a small land locked airport with no freeway or highway access. The streets providing access to the airport would not be able handle the increased vehicular traffic to and from the airport that an expanded Love Field beyond 20 gates would generate.
"Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to DFW today and fly anywhere they want," WN spokesman Ed Stewart
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: AS adds DAL-SEA/PDX/SJC/SAN

Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:53 pm

INFINITI329 wrote:
Do ground handling contracts have to be renegotiated? Seeing how it's a different airline with different equipment?


I'm guessing VX used a 3rd party handler for below-the-wing ops at DAL? If so, it shouldn't be hard to negotiate new aircraft types into the contract.

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