trex8 wrote:SNAs runway is half the length of the longest at ONT, never going to support widebodies for long haul. SANs runway is 50% longer than SNAs and people talk about takeoff issues there.
Isnt the whole point that CI wants the the other LAX carriers to suffer (except maybe their Skyteam partners) but the more it hits BR the better as far as CI sees it.
Yeah I know SNA cannot handle it, that's why I said if it "can expand." Obviously that's not the case.
LAXintl wrote:Obviously, per-capita income has a correlation with spending power and the propensity of travel by consumers.
This data doesn't tell us much. It's all domestic where you have options.
When one is offered a non-stop flight from various airlines in LAX for $49 and a one-stop flight from ONT for $169 just to get to SFO (or take the direct one from UA for $219), it's obvious one will not choose ONT. The time it saves from the non-stop alone cuts down the driving time. Also, by hourly wages, the opportunity cost to take the ONT flight means you will need to earn an extra $120. If the traffic is 2 hours, that's $60/hour. How many people earn that much to not take the LAX flight?
In scenarios like these, is the more wealthy people using LAX or ONT? Hard to say.
Now, when one wants to take an international flight using non-stop, or minimizing stops, one has to choose LAX. No one is going to drive 3 hours down to SAN or 4 hours up to LAS from the Inland Empire. I mean, yes we do know that Asians are price sensitive, but not all of them always value money over time.
At the right hours, I can drive from Rancho Cucamonga (north of 210) to LAX within 1 hour going from 210 > 605 > 105 to take a domestic flight. LAX isn't always that bad for a domestic flight if you time it right. At any kind of hour, I pretty much have to take local to Ontario Airport cause freeway makes no sense, and that would take 20-30 minutes with all those traffic lights on Archibald. Even if I avoid them by going into small streets, I would still need 20 minutes. With the price cap at ONT being so much higher than LAX and LAWA not helping out the past couple years, no wonder no one is taking flights from ONT.
The catch for the TPE-ONT flight is:
1. For those Taiwanese who wants to avoid LAX, so their destination is TPE.
2. For those VIPs who want to avoid LAX, since even LAX does not have a direct flight for them.
3. For price sensitive customers who is willing to take a transit flight even though they have a direct options available at LAX (pax with destinations in Hong Kong, China, Singapore, South Korea and Japan etc.).
4. For those who really find ONT is the more convenient airport for them going transpacific.
77W may be too big. If TPE-ONT v.v. can be proven to be sustainable without affecting the operations at TPE-LAX v.v. (as in CI does not need to reduce LAX to 10 weekly or less to keep ONT alive), I can see ONT going 359 4 weekly to daily by itself on a night departure flight. In that case the crew rotation will be separated and LAX will be back to it's own rotation while ONT has it's own rotation.
Agreed SNA/OC has the demographics and best opportunity of LA basin community airports to support such flying, but alas the airport cant handle it. Suppose too bad El Toro never came to fruition.
