China Airlines announces TPE-ONT service

many321 · Thu May 03, 2018 12:04 am

FA9295 wrote:
janders wrote:
Booking comparison between LA/ONT per sales contact.
ONT
06MAY- 12/17/96

96 out of 256 seats filled in economy...? That is just sad.

Exactly. Seeing the other booking numbers, its noticeable if they had stuck to their original 4 day schedule they wouldn't be having this problem. CI jumped the shark by doing 7 days. Let's see if they course correct.

coolfish1103 · Thu May 03, 2018 3:26 pm

many321 wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
janders wrote:
Booking comparison between LA/ONT per sales contact.
ONT
06MAY- 12/17/96

96 out of 256 seats filled in economy...? That is just sad.

Exactly. Seeing the other booking numbers, its noticeable if they had stuck to their original 4 day schedule they wouldn't be having this problem. CI jumped the shark by doing 7 days. Let's see if they course correct.

What they need to do is resume the CI 5/6/9 at LAX, and change CI 23/24 to night flight to compliment CI 7/8. If they don't want to change the flight to night time, then I guess they can operate ONT with just 3 weekly flight.

many321 wrote:
trex8 wrote:
Sounds like a perfect A338 route. But seriously, they probably dont have enough A359s right now and thats still a little big. Would a one stop in ANC wtih a A333 be more economical to operate?

Good question. ONT did do those charter test flights to mainland China with that stop ANC last summer through Dynamic.

One stop is not an option. People will opt for flights ex-LAX. LAX is probably one of the airports with the most direct destinations in the world operated by multiple foreign carriers.

FA9295 wrote:
janders wrote:
Booking comparison between LA/ONT per sales contact.
ONT
06MAY- 12/17/96

96 out of 256 seats filled in economy...? That is just sad.

This is sending message that it should be operated by an A359. I mean even with A359 it's still too big for this route.

No wonder my sister said the line at Business counter is longer than Economy...

janders wrote:
Booking comparison between LA/ONT per sales contact.

Counts are biz/prem econ/regular econ.

ONT
02MAY- 14/28/179
03MAY- 8/38/156
04MAY- 23/25/112
05MAY- 26/28/117
06MAY- 12/17/96
07MAY- 19/27/143

LAX
02MAY- 32/52/253
03MAY- 28/38/209
04MAY- 32/56/211
05MAY- 32/33/193
06MAY- 34/51/180
07MAY- 27/44/200

Config of CI 777-300ER is 40/62/256

They need to turn CI 23/24 into night flight and catch the passengers from CI 7/8 and the two night time flight BR (11/12/15/16). Currently what they are doing is turning all their Business transit passengers to BR 5/6 morning flight by cancelling the afternoon flight plus they cannot do beyond transit at ONT, or base transit via TPE unless it's to BKK or HKG (arriving at undesired time). It doesn't work.

many321 · Thu May 03, 2018 4:49 pm

coolfish1103 wrote:
many321 wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
96 out of 256 seats filled in economy...? That is just sad.

Exactly. Seeing the other booking numbers, its noticeable if they had stuck to their original 4 day schedule they wouldn't be having this problem. CI jumped the shark by doing 7 days. Let's see if they course correct.

What they need to do is resume the CI 5/6/9 at LAX, and change CI 23/24 to night flight to compliment CI 7/8. If they don't want to change the flight to night time, then I guess they can operate ONT with just 3 weekly flight.

many321 wrote:
trex8 wrote:
Sounds like a perfect A338 route. But seriously, they probably dont have enough A359s right now and thats still a little big. Would a one stop in ANC wtih a A333 be more economical to operate?

Good question. ONT did do those charter test flights to mainland China with that stop ANC last summer through Dynamic.

One stop is not an option. People will opt for flights ex-LAX. LAX is probably one of the airports with the most direct destinations in the world operated by multiple foreign carriers.

FA9295 wrote:
janders wrote:
Booking comparison between LA/ONT per sales contact.
ONT
06MAY- 12/17/96

96 out of 256 seats filled in economy...? That is just sad.

This is sending message that it should be operated by an A359. I mean even with A359 it's still too big for this route.

No wonder my sister said the line at Business counter is longer than Economy...

janders wrote:
Booking comparison between LA/ONT per sales contact.

Counts are biz/prem econ/regular econ.

ONT
02MAY- 14/28/179
03MAY- 8/38/156
04MAY- 23/25/112
05MAY- 26/28/117
06MAY- 12/17/96
07MAY- 19/27/143

LAX
02MAY- 32/52/253
03MAY- 28/38/209
04MAY- 32/56/211
05MAY- 32/33/193
06MAY- 34/51/180
07MAY- 27/44/200

Config of CI 777-300ER is 40/62/256

They need to turn CI 23/24 into night flight and catch the passengers from CI 7/8 and the two night time flight BR (11/12/15/16). Currently what they are doing is turning all their Business transit passengers to BR 5/6 morning flight by cancelling the afternoon flight plus they cannot do beyond transit at ONT, or base transit via TPE unless it's to BKK or HKG (arriving at undesired time). It doesn't work.

You bring good points in all counts. They're attracting people to ONT, but not enough to keep weekly flights unless they do the changes you speak about. I just checked some flights for mid June and you have point about them just keeping 3 weekly flights since the plane is mostly full. Though the other days...YIKES! Talk about the mess they found themselves in.

Let's see if the ONT management pushes CI to make changes to save the route because from what I've read in the local press they pushed for this type of transpacific flight ever since LAWA had ownership of ONT. Now, that they have local control, they want to make a point that ONT is viable alternative to LAX. They have more stake on this than CI since they could just bail and restart at LAX.

frank1991 · Sat May 19, 2018 2:29 am

according to flyontario.com this route carries 12229 passengers in the month of April. so load factor is 12229/(358*60) ~ 57%.

trex8 · Sat May 19, 2018 3:08 pm

Seems when their last 2 A359 s get delivered, one due this month and another by Oct, they should change to that and go less than daily. Though how much of a crew scheduling issue is this given they will still operate LAX with 77W. Isn't LAX a base for their expat crews?
Going to 6 per week A359 will get them up to 77% load factors which is their fleet average system wide. And they'll burn lost less fuel. Wonder how much cargo they are taking?

continental004 · Sat May 19, 2018 4:20 pm

The flight should be nighttime to allow for more connections to MNL, SGN, etc. Operating it during the daytime was a mistake.

many321 · Sat May 19, 2018 4:23 pm

trex8 wrote:
Seems when their last 2 A359 s get delivered, one due this month and another by Oct, they should change to that and go less than daily.

Going to 6 per week A359 will get them up to 77% load factors which is their fleet average system wide. And they'll burn lost less fuel. Wonder how much cargo they are taking?

For that to work, CI would be better of swapping the afternoon flight to nights like in LAX to capture maximum number of passengers with the A359, then if it begins to be oversold, then swap it with the 77W.

I've been on FT forum and coolfish1103, I assume is the same person here, posted the numbers for April for both LAX and ONT. Here's what they posted.

April 2018

LAX
CAL 19,202/21,838 87.9
EVA 48,167/58,470 82.4

ONT
CAL 12,448/21,480 58.0

CAL combined: 31,650/43,318 73.1

What coolfish thinks with these numbers is that most switched to the night flight while not gaining anyone from EVA while in the same time losing more people. From these numbers either CI bails and starts again at LAX or like some have mentioned before, CI cuts back to their original 4 or 3 daily though at late night.

This is anecdotal, I went to check their late night test flight operations. I walked to T2, and they had a semi-long check in line just like with Y4's late night GDL flights. I thought this would had given CI a signal to do night flights instead. I've gone several time during the day just to see how they're doing, its pretty empty. I like rooting for the underdog (ONT), I hope CI swaps the flights to night and see if that's the needed correction before terminating the route.

Regarding cargo, I don't have numbers, and this is also anecdotal, every time I've been at their small arrivals terminal, I've seen them always off load large pallets from the plane and take it to a small housing next to the main terminal. Perhaps the passenger numbers are down while cargo wise, I assume are doing better.

trex8 · Sat May 19, 2018 7:01 pm

continental004 wrote:
The flight should be nighttime to allow for more connections to MNL, SGN, etc. Operating it during the daytime was a mistake.

Does a heavy wide body takeoff count towards the night restrictions at ONT? On the airport website says no high power engine maintenance runs after 10 pm.

many321 · Sat May 19, 2018 7:54 pm

trex8 wrote:
continental004 wrote:
The flight should be nighttime to allow for more connections to MNL, SGN, etc. Operating it during the daytime was a mistake.

Does a heavy wide body takeoff count towards the night restrictions at ONT? On the airport website says no high power engine maintenance runs after 10 pm.

I highly doubt that. if you check flightradar24, UPS and FedEx have their departures after 1am.

FX1816 · Mon May 21, 2018 7:25 am

many321 wrote:
trex8 wrote:
continental004 wrote:
The flight should be nighttime to allow for more connections to MNL, SGN, etc. Operating it during the daytime was a mistake.

Does a heavy wide body takeoff count towards the night restrictions at ONT? On the airport website says no high power engine maintenance runs after 10 pm.

I highly doubt that. if you check flightradar24, UPS and FedEx have their departures after 1am.

It is true, NO MAINTENANCE ENGINE RUNS but it does not affect any arrivals or departures, we are a 24 hour operation. FedEx does not have any departures between 1:00am and 5:00am, FDX866 is the first departure for FDX at about 5:30am.

LAX772LR · Mon May 21, 2018 8:01 am

trex8 wrote:
And they'll burn lost less fuel.

But they'll be paying a lot higher amount on the acquisition cost... which (among other factors) makes calculating their CASM not nearly as a straightforward as "which one burns less fuel"

many321 · Mon May 21, 2018 12:29 pm

FX1816 wrote:
many321 wrote:
trex8 wrote:
Does a heavy wide body takeoff count towards the night restrictions at ONT? On the airport website says no high power engine maintenance runs after 10 pm.

I highly doubt that. if you check flightradar24, UPS and FedEx have their departures after 1am.

It is true, NO MAINTENANCE ENGINE RUNS but it does not affect any arrivals or departures, we are a 24 hour operation. FedEx does not have any departures between 1:00am and 5:00am, FDX866 is the first departure for FDX at about 5:30am.

Pardon my mistake regarding FedEx.

bzcat · Mon May 21, 2018 8:02 pm

It's not a simple equipment swap for CI to go from 77W to A359 at ONT.

Right now, CI and use the same pool of crew to operate both LAX and ONT flights after mandatory rest time. If ONT switches to A359, then CI will have to setup a second crew roster rest schedule for LA. I think they choose 77W deliberately to minimize operating costs on the crew scheduling side and hedged by simply moving the daytime CI5/6 over to ONT to protect the load and yield on the late night LAX flight.

Several people have already mentioned that for ONT to really work, it needs to be a late night departure for O&D so CI should make that switch if it wants this to be a real business. But I think that just exposes the problem... there is already a late night O&D focused flight ex-LAX. If ONT and LAX operates on the same schedule, then it boils down to yield - and I don't think anyone, not even ONT executives can delude themselves into thinking that ONT will earn higher yield. The whole rationale for ONT was that there is an untapped market for this flight. If you are just shuffling LAX passengers to ONT without any increase in yield, then the split operation is kind of pointless. CI should just go back to having 2 flights at LAX and simplify its operations.

many321 · Mon May 21, 2018 9:18 pm

bzcat wrote:

Several people have already mentioned that for ONT to really work, it needs to be a late night departure for O&D so CI should make that switch if it wants this to be a real business. But I think that just exposes the problem... there is already a late night O&D focused flight ex-LAX. If ONT and LAX operates on the same schedule, then it boils down to yield - and I don't think anyone, not even ONT executives can delude themselves into thinking that ONT will earn higher yield. The whole rationale for ONT was that there is an untapped market for this flight. If you are just shuffling LAX passengers to ONT without any increase in yield, then the split operation is kind of pointless. CI should just go back to having 2 flights at LAX and simplify its operations.

I would agree though, I want to bring this example, please correct me if the comparison is wrong. Y4 has a similar split operation with its GDL's route from ONT and LAX. ONT is primarily at night while at LAX its four nights a week while the remainder are during the morning or afternoon. If CI went with the Y4 model, they would go back to their original 4 daily at night in ONT while doing 7 daily at LAX and perhaps restart their afternoon flights for the days ONT is not operational.

I like many still believe the potential is there for the route to work due to the communities that CI serves live closer to ONT than LAX, though the issue was the boneheaded decision of making this a afternoon flight. This is just beating a dead horse. Now, we have to wait and see if CI management course corrects or sadly just pulls the plug.

coolfish1103 · Tue May 22, 2018 8:04 am

Yes I use the same name here and FT, but I don't visit here often.

trex8 wrote:
Seems when their last 2 A359 s get delivered, one due this month and another by Oct, they should change to that and go less than daily. Though how much of a crew scheduling issue is this given they will still operate LAX with 77W. Isn't LAX a base for their expat crews?
Going to 6 per week A359 will get them up to 77% load factors which is their fleet average system wide. And they'll burn lost less fuel. Wonder how much cargo they are taking?

I would be surprised they won't get their last aircraft sooner than October. Checking the production list it's already under final assembly, I would expect it to be ready in July or August. Did CI push the time slot back?

I believe CI does not have any ex-pat crews based in US. They have some Japanese and South East Asia crew. However, they do have ground staff at LA so all ground handling in ONT is also being operated by the LAX based staff.

bzcat wrote:
It's not a simple equipment swap for CI to go from 77W to A359 at ONT.

Right now, CI and use the same pool of crew to operate both LAX and ONT flights after mandatory rest time. If ONT switches to A359, then CI will have to setup a second crew roster rest schedule for LA. I think they choose 77W deliberately to minimize operating costs on the crew scheduling side and hedged by simply moving the daytime CI5/6 over to ONT to protect the load and yield on the late night LAX flight.

It was suspected by many of us, but nope. From what I know CI does not rotate crews between ONT and LAX and ONT is on a 3-day rotation basis. Making it daily could also be a crew rotation issue cause 4 weekly would create that havoc EVA had at SFO (or CAL has to give more rest).

bzcat wrote:
Several people have already mentioned that for ONT to really work, it needs to be a late night departure for O&D so CI should make that switch if it wants this to be a real business. But I think that just exposes the problem... there is already a late night O&D focused flight ex-LAX. If ONT and LAX operates on the same schedule, then it boils down to yield - and I don't think anyone, not even ONT executives can delude themselves into thinking that ONT will earn higher yield. The whole rationale for ONT was that there is an untapped market for this flight. If you are just shuffling LAX passengers to ONT without any increase in yield, then the split operation is kind of pointless. CI should just go back to having 2 flights at LAX and simplify its operations.

Not really. Making it night flight will allow CI 24/3 not only to capture the market of CI 8/7, it will also take some business away from BR. Currently BR has two night flight while CI only has 1. I would think the same amount of business will be taken by CI 24/3 on both sides. Say if CI will lose about 5% (15-20 customers off CI 8/7), I would expect BR to lose also 5% combined for both flights (so 7-10 per flight). 5% is just a hypothetical number, though.

If CI were to swap 359 in, I think the entire LAX operation should be swapped to 359 not because of crew rotation, but to ease the market yield. It would effectively reduce the number of seats on their side and still capture markets from the likes of BR or even CX. LAX can stay 2 daily while ONT goes daily on a 359.

many321 wrote:
I would agree though, I want to bring this example, please correct me if the comparison is wrong. Y4 has a similar split operation with its GDL's route from ONT and LAX. ONT is primarily at night while at LAX its four nights a week while the remainder are during the morning or afternoon. If CI went with the Y4 model, they would go back to their original 4 daily at night in ONT while doing 7 daily at LAX and perhaps restart their afternoon flights for the days ONT is not operational.

I like many still believe the potential is there for the route to work due to the communities that CI serves live closer to ONT than LAX, though the issue was the boneheaded decision of making this a afternoon flight. This is just beating a dead horse. Now, we have to wait and see if CI management course corrects or sadly just pulls the plug.

You meant weekly for CI? I still believe there is a case for ONT, but it needs to be operated at the right time frame with right aircraft. CAL does not have the right aircraft like ANA, but they should at least try to time it to night flight before calling quit.

A plausible case for CAL would be to keep the original operations at LAX but reduce the number of seats. By operating 359 in this route they will have a superior hardware product in every single way compared to EVA, but they will lose significant amount of Premium Economy passengers because 359 has less seats in configuration.

359 C32W31Y243 v. 77W C40W62Y256
3x = C96W93Y729 v. 2x = C80W124Y512

~~EVA has mostly C39W56Y258 in operation, current 3x daily yields = C117W168Y774, but can drop to Y238 here to compete with Y714.~~
Corrected by below post: EVA has most C38W56Y238 in operation for LAX, so current 3x daily yields approximately C114W168Y714.

Maybe they could start off with this...? 14 weekly 359 to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT (or 12 weekly 77W to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT).

CI 5 1555-2055 5 weekly (12456)
CI 6 1640-1330 daily
CI 7 0005-0500+1 daily
CI 8 2350-2250 daily
CI 9 0035-0530+1 2 weekly (46)

CI 23 2310-2020 5 weekly (12456)
CI 24 0025-0535+1 5 weekly (12357)

hayzel777 · Tue May 22, 2018 8:18 am

coolfish1103 wrote:
Yes I use the same name here and FT, but I don't visit here often.

trex8 wrote:
Seems when their last 2 A359 s get delivered, one due this month and another by Oct, they should change to that and go less than daily. Though how much of a crew scheduling issue is this given they will still operate LAX with 77W. Isn't LAX a base for their expat crews?
Going to 6 per week A359 will get them up to 77% load factors which is their fleet average system wide. And they'll burn lost less fuel. Wonder how much cargo they are taking?

I would be surprised they won't get their last aircraft sooner than October. Checking the production list it's already under final assembly, I would expect it to be ready in July or August. Did CI push the time slot back?

I believe CI does not have any ex-pat crews based in US. They have some Japanese and South East Asia crew. However, they do have ground staff at LA so all ground handling in ONT is also being operated by the LAX based staff.

bzcat wrote:
It's not a simple equipment swap for CI to go from 77W to A359 at ONT.

Right now, CI and use the same pool of crew to operate both LAX and ONT flights after mandatory rest time. If ONT switches to A359, then CI will have to setup a second crew roster rest schedule for LA. I think they choose 77W deliberately to minimize operating costs on the crew scheduling side and hedged by simply moving the daytime CI5/6 over to ONT to protect the load and yield on the late night LAX flight.

It was suspected by many of us, but nope. From what I know CI does not rotate crews between ONT and LAX and ONT is on a 3-day rotation basis. Making it daily could also be a crew rotation issue cause 4 weekly would create that havoc EVA had at SFO (or CAL has to give more rest).

bzcat wrote:
Several people have already mentioned that for ONT to really work, it needs to be a late night departure for O&D so CI should make that switch if it wants this to be a real business. But I think that just exposes the problem... there is already a late night O&D focused flight ex-LAX. If ONT and LAX operates on the same schedule, then it boils down to yield - and I don't think anyone, not even ONT executives can delude themselves into thinking that ONT will earn higher yield. The whole rationale for ONT was that there is an untapped market for this flight. If you are just shuffling LAX passengers to ONT without any increase in yield, then the split operation is kind of pointless. CI should just go back to having 2 flights at LAX and simplify its operations.

Not really. Making it night flight will allow CI 24/3 not only to capture the market of CI 8/7, it will also take some business away from BR. Currently BR has two night flight while CI only has 1. I would think the same amount of business will be taken by CI 24/3 on both sides. Say if CI will lose about 5% (15-20 customers off CI 8/7), I would expect BR to lose also 5% combined for both flights (so 7-10 per flight). 5% is just a hypothetical number, though.

If CI were to swap 359 in, I think the entire LAX operation should be swapped to 359 not because of crew rotation, but to ease the market yield. It would effectively reduce the number of seats on their side and still capture markets from the likes of BR or even CX. LAX can stay 2 daily while ONT goes daily on a 359.

many321 wrote:
I would agree though, I want to bring this example, please correct me if the comparison is wrong. Y4 has a similar split operation with its GDL's route from ONT and LAX. ONT is primarily at night while at LAX its four nights a week while the remainder are during the morning or afternoon. If CI went with the Y4 model, they would go back to their original 4 daily at night in ONT while doing 7 daily at LAX and perhaps restart their afternoon flights for the days ONT is not operational.

I like many still believe the potential is there for the route to work due to the communities that CI serves live closer to ONT than LAX, though the issue was the boneheaded decision of making this a afternoon flight. This is just beating a dead horse. Now, we have to wait and see if CI management course corrects or sadly just pulls the plug.

You meant weekly for CI? I still believe there is a case for ONT, but it needs to be operated at the right time frame with right aircraft. CAL does not have the right aircraft like ANA, but they should at least try to time it to night flight before calling quit.

A plausible case for CAL would be to keep the original operations at LAX but reduce the number of seats. By operating 359 in this route they will have a superior hardware product in every single way compared to EVA, but they will lose significant amount of Premium Economy passengers because 359 has less seats in configuration.

359 C32W31Y243 v. 77W C40W62Y256
3x = C96W93Y729 v. 2x = C80W124Y512

EVA has mostly C39W56Y258 in operation, current 3x daily yields = C117W168Y774, but can drop to Y238 here to compete with Y714.

Maybe they could start off with this...? 14 weekly 359 to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT (or 12 weekly 77W to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT).

CI 5 1555-2055 5 weekly (12456)
CI 6 1640-1330 daily
CI 7 0005-0500+1 daily
CI 8 2350-2250 daily
CI 9 0035-0530+1 2 weekly (46)

CI 23 2310-2020 5 weekly (12456)
CI 24 0025-0535+1 5 weekly (12357)

Actually, BR runs LAX with C38W64Y221(and the sporadic C39W56Y258 on BR5/6)

many321 · Tue May 22, 2018 1:08 pm

coolfish1103 wrote:

You meant weekly for CI? I still believe there is a case for ONT, but it needs to be operated at the right time frame with right aircraft. CAL does not have the right aircraft like ANA, but they should at least try to time it to night flight before calling quit.

A plausible case for CAL would be to keep the original operations at LAX but reduce the number of seats. By operating 359 in this route they will have a superior hardware product in every single way compared to EVA, but they will lose significant amount of Premium Economy passengers because 359 has less seats in configuration.

359 C32W31Y243 v. 77W C40W62Y256
3x = C96W93Y729 v. 2x = C80W124Y512

~~EVA has mostly C39W56Y258 in operation, current 3x daily yields = C117W168Y774, but can drop to Y238 here to compete with Y714.~~
Corrected by below post: EVA has most C38W56Y238 in operation for LAX, so current 3x daily yields approximately C114W168Y714.

Maybe they could start off with this...? 14 weekly 359 to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT (or 12 weekly 77W to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT).

CI 5 1555-2055 5 weekly (12456)
CI 6 1640-1330 daily
CI 7 0005-0500+1 daily
CI 8 2350-2250 daily
CI 9 0035-0530+1 2 weekly (46)

CI 23 2310-2020 5 weekly (12456)
CI 24 0025-0535+1 5 weekly (12357)

Yup, weekly.

I checked ONT website and noticed they have a general comment section. I went ahead and wrote a letter regarding the rumors of CI leaving due to low passenger numbers. I told them about the flight's potential since community is just there, though they needed to swap the flights to night and justified it by talking about o&d who would rather travel at night, and the connecting passengers who would rather leave from LAX due to short 2 hour layover in TPE for destinations like Manila and Saigon than 10 hr layover in TPE if they left from ONT. In addition, told them they would siphon traffic from BR though, didn't go as detail with a mock schedule as you have here for them to see if it's possible.

I haven't heard a reply from them and I highly doubt they'll take my suggestion, though if you or anyone else could go and comment about this though giving them detail numbers such as coolfish did, they might go and push CI to do something.

jasoncrh · Tue May 22, 2018 1:44 pm

Do you really think that both the airport and CI are not aware of the numbers, whatever they may be?

Do you really think that there arent people at CI analyzing ways to make the flight as profitable/ sustainable as possible?

Do you really think that airport execs/ officials are not talking with CI all the time about the flight's performance?

many321 wrote:
coolfish1103 wrote:

You meant weekly for CI? I still believe there is a case for ONT, but it needs to be operated at the right time frame with right aircraft. CAL does not have the right aircraft like ANA, but they should at least try to time it to night flight before calling quit.

A plausible case for CAL would be to keep the original operations at LAX but reduce the number of seats. By operating 359 in this route they will have a superior hardware product in every single way compared to EVA, but they will lose significant amount of Premium Economy passengers because 359 has less seats in configuration.

359 C32W31Y243 v. 77W C40W62Y256
3x = C96W93Y729 v. 2x = C80W124Y512

~~EVA has mostly C39W56Y258 in operation, current 3x daily yields = C117W168Y774, but can drop to Y238 here to compete with Y714.~~
Corrected by below post: EVA has most C38W56Y238 in operation for LAX, so current 3x daily yields approximately C114W168Y714.

Maybe they could start off with this...? 14 weekly 359 to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT (or 12 weekly 77W to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT).

CI 5 1555-2055 5 weekly (12456)
CI 6 1640-1330 daily
CI 7 0005-0500+1 daily
CI 8 2350-2250 daily
CI 9 0035-0530+1 2 weekly (46)

CI 23 2310-2020 5 weekly (12456)
CI 24 0025-0535+1 5 weekly (12357)

Yup, weekly.

I checked ONT website and noticed they have a general comment section. I went ahead and wrote a letter regarding the rumors of CI leaving due to low passenger numbers. I told them about the flight's potential since community is just there, though they needed to swap the flights to night and justified it by talking about o&d who would rather travel at night, and the connecting passengers who would rather leave from LAX due to short 2 hour layover in TPE for destinations like Manila and Saigon than 10 hr layover in TPE if they left from ONT. In addition, told them they would siphon traffic from BR though, didn't go as detail with a mock schedule as you have here for them to see if it's possible.

I haven't heard a reply from them and I highly doubt they'll take my suggestion, though if you or anyone else could go and comment about this though giving them detail numbers such as coolfish did, they might go and push CI to do something.

many321 · Tue May 22, 2018 2:48 pm

jasoncrh wrote:
Do you really think that both the airport and CI are not aware of the numbers, whatever they may be?

Do you really think that there arent people at CI analyzing ways to make the flight as profitable/ sustainable as possible?

Do you really think that airport execs/ officials are not talking with CI all the time about the flight's performance?

many321 wrote:
coolfish1103 wrote:

You meant weekly for CI? I still believe there is a case for ONT, but it needs to be operated at the right time frame with right aircraft. CAL does not have the right aircraft like ANA, but they should at least try to time it to night flight before calling quit.

A plausible case for CAL would be to keep the original operations at LAX but reduce the number of seats. By operating 359 in this route they will have a superior hardware product in every single way compared to EVA, but they will lose significant amount of Premium Economy passengers because 359 has less seats in configuration.

359 C32W31Y243 v. 77W C40W62Y256
3x = C96W93Y729 v. 2x = C80W124Y512

~~EVA has mostly C39W56Y258 in operation, current 3x daily yields = C117W168Y774, but can drop to Y238 here to compete with Y714.~~
Corrected by below post: EVA has most C38W56Y238 in operation for LAX, so current 3x daily yields approximately C114W168Y714.

Maybe they could start off with this...? 14 weekly 359 to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT (or 12 weekly 77W to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT).

CI 5 1555-2055 5 weekly (12456)
CI 6 1640-1330 daily
CI 7 0005-0500+1 daily
CI 8 2350-2250 daily
CI 9 0035-0530+1 2 weekly (46)

CI 23 2310-2020 5 weekly (12456)
CI 24 0025-0535+1 5 weekly (12357)

Yup, weekly.

I checked ONT website and noticed they have a general comment section. I went ahead and wrote a letter regarding the rumors of CI leaving due to low passenger numbers. I told them about the flight's potential since community is just there, though they needed to swap the flights to night and justified it by talking about o&d who would rather travel at night, and the connecting passengers who would rather leave from LAX due to short 2 hour layover in TPE for destinations like Manila and Saigon than 10 hr layover in TPE if they left from ONT. In addition, told them they would siphon traffic from BR though, didn't go as detail with a mock schedule as you have here for them to see if it's possible.

I haven't heard a reply from them and I highly doubt they'll take my suggestion, though if you or anyone else could go and comment about this though giving them detail numbers such as coolfish did, they might go and push CI to do something.

Whoa! Relax there. There's nothing wrong about letting them know that some in the public are beginning to realize that the current schedule is not working. If you notice, I don't work there and don't know the ins and outs. No need to come off as condescending.

LAXintl · Tue May 22, 2018 3:52 pm

Even swapping to an A350 if available or an evening departure hardly solves the ONT issues, matter of fact might create more headaches for CI.

As is ONT flight must be priced lower than LAX to drive traffic, with nighttime departure it would compete even more head on with the LAX flight, and leave CI without a daytime option in its largest US market. CI might end up in even weaker state with the LAX flight performance being dragged down as well.

Also keep in mind, A350 is still a big bird to fill at 306 seats.

coolfish1103 wrote:

However, they do have ground staff at LA so all ground handling in ONT is also being operated by the LAX based staff.

That is incorrect. They utilize 3rd party vendor for ONT handling, same company that does Volaris actually.

many321 wrote:
I would agree though, I want to bring this example, please correct me if the comparison is wrong. Y4 has a similar split operation with its GDL's route from ONT and LAX. ONT is primarily at night while at LAX its four nights a week while the remainder are during the morning or afternoon. If CI went with the Y4 model, they would go back to their original 4 daily at night in ONT while doing 7 daily at LAX and perhaps restart their afternoon flights for the days ONT is not operational.

I dont see any comparison with Y4. They are entirely different beast and business models.
Y4 has a ton of California redeye flights largely due aircraft utilization overnight away from Mexico.

LAXintl · Tue May 22, 2018 3:52 pm

Even swapping to an A350 if available or an evening departure hardly solves the ONT issues, matter of fact might create more headaches for CI.

As is ONT flight must be priced lower than LAX to drive traffic, with nighttime departure it would compete even more head on with the LAX flight, and leave CI without a daytime option in its largest US market. CI might end up in even weaker state with the LAX flight performance being dragged down as well.

Also keep in mind, A350 is still a big bird to fill at 306 seats.

coolfish1103 wrote:

However, they do have ground staff at LA so all ground handling in ONT is also being operated by the LAX based staff.

That is incorrect. They utilize 3rd party vendor for ONT handling, same company that does Volaris actually.

many321 wrote:
I would agree though, I want to bring this example, please correct me if the comparison is wrong. Y4 has a similar split operation with its GDL's route from ONT and LAX. ONT is primarily at night while at LAX its four nights a week while the remainder are during the morning or afternoon. If CI went with the Y4 model, they would go back to their original 4 daily at night in ONT while doing 7 daily at LAX and perhaps restart their afternoon flights for the days ONT is not operational.

I dont see any comparison with Y4. They are entirely different beast and business models.
Y4 has a ton of California redeye flights largely due aircraft utilization overnight away from Mexico.

zakuivcustom · Tue May 22, 2018 4:47 pm

many321 wrote:
April 2018

LAX
CAL 19,202/21,838 87.9
EVA 48,167/58,470 82.4

ONT
CAL 12,448/21,480 58.0

CAL combined: 31,650/43,318 73.1

The number came from Taiwan's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) BTW:
http://www.caa.gov.tw/Big5/content/index.asp?sno=969#21

Just more random stats:
March 2018:
LAX
CAL 30,424/37,232 (81.7%)
EVA 50,816/60,025 (84.7%)

ONT
CAL 3,571/4,654 (76.7%)

CAL combined: 33,995/41,886 (81.2%)

YoY:
March 2017:
CAL 32,630/43,676 (74.7%)
EVA 45,753/60,738 (75.3%)

April 2017:
CAL 35,540/43,676 (81.4%)
EVA 47,554/58,267 (81.6%)

May 2017:
CAL 38,654/44,034 (87.8%)
EVA 48,657/60,268 (80.7%)

coolfish1103 · Tue May 22, 2018 4:58 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Even swapping to an A350 if available or an evening departure hardly solves the ONT issues, matter of fact might create more headaches for CI.

As is ONT flight must be priced lower than LAX to drive traffic, with nighttime departure it would compete even more head on with the LAX flight, and leave CI without a daytime option in its largest US market. CI might end up in even weaker state with the LAX flight performance being dragged down as well.

Also keep in mind, A350 is still a big bird to fill at 306 seats.

The afternoon LAX has to be resumed. It simply makes no sense to give away your transit and business passengers to competition by not operating it. That was the only day time flight CAL had after suspending the SFO flight. Having ONT operate at night does not interfere too much with the afternoon LAX flight.

Undercutting is normal. CAL often had $50-100 cheaper ticket with CI 6/5 in place when compared to CI 8/7. CI 24/3 can just price exactly like CI 6/5.

LAXintl wrote:
That is incorrect. They utilize 3rd party vendor for ONT handling, same company that does Volaris actually.

My mistake if it's wrong. The video I saw that CAL made for ONT procedures had CI agents. Was that an one time only case then?

LAX     China Airlines          EVA Airways             China Airlines ONT

2018/04 19,202/21,838   87.9    48,167/58,470   82.4    12,448/21,480   58.0
2018/03 30,424/37,232   81.7    50,816/60,025   84.7     3,571/ 4,654   76.7
2018/02 32,398/39,738   81.5    46,463/54,747   84.9
2018/01 34,723/40,096   86.6    51,816/59,885   86.5       610/   716   85.2
2017/12 33,593/39,380   85.3    50,250/60,721   82.8
2017/11 34,676/40,454   85.7    46,802/58,127   80.5
2017/10 34,505/42,244   81.7    47,968/60,448   79.4
2017/09 30,731/43,318   70.9    40,805/57,754   70.7
2017/08 38,965/44,392   87.8    53,185/60,831   87.4
2017/07 38,394/44,750   85.8    48,474/60,185   80.5
2017/06 37,660/42,602   88.4    47,839/58,813   81.3
2017/05 38,654/44,034   87.8    48,657/60,268   80.7
2017/04 35,540/43,676   81.4    47,554/58,267   81.6
2017/03 32,630/43,676   74.7    45,753/60,738   75.3
2017/02 31,291/40,096   78.0    41,727/51,837   80.5
2017/01 39,714/44,750   88.7    53,142/57,520   92.4

jasoncrh wrote:
Do you really think that both the airport and CI are not aware of the numbers, whatever they may be?

Do you really think that there arent people at CI analyzing ways to make the flight as profitable/ sustainable as possible?

Do you really think that airport execs/ officials are not talking with CI all the time about the flight's performance?

I highly doubt the top of CAL knows what they are doing when their current President is not from this industry. He was appointed from the government. All he knows was to say yes to the labor strike and then back out months later. To most of us, this route TPE-ONT v.v. is a political route.

Cancelling an existing LAX flight that was doing okay in favor of the ONT flight, then move from 4 to 7 weekly? I hardly find this a logical move.

janders · Tue May 22, 2018 8:05 pm

I think one important point to be made here, is that even if loads were to improve at ONT, they likely would do so only with heavier discounting which does not have the routes profitability as it diminishes the yields

Similarly based on loads posted here prior, its clear the premium demand is on LAX flight. Not sure that will ever change regardless of any schedule being offered at ONT. Lastly lets remember CI is member of Skyteam and to one degree or another has connectivity (and revenue) from partner DL at LAX, something it cant do at ONT with essentially an orphan flight.

coolfish1103 wrote:
Maybe they could start off with this...? 14 weekly 359 to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT (or 12 weekly 77W to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT).

CI 5 1555-2055 5 weekly (12456)
CI 6 1640-1330 daily
CI 7 0005-0500+1 daily
CI 8 2350-2250 daily
CI 9 0035-0530+1 2 weekly (46)

CI 23 2310-2020 5 weekly (12456)
CI 24 0025-0535+1 5 weekly (12357)

Not sure CI wants to have that much capacity/flights in LA basin. That's many seats to fill with two nearby stations competing against each other for overlapping passenger base.

jetero · Tue May 22, 2018 8:37 pm

masgniw wrote:
ANet has been chirping for years about how ONT would be a profitable + logically sound gateway to China/Taiwan. As an LA resident, I was always pretty skeptical that it would work, and these lackluster numbers seem to be backing me up.

Does this mark the end of the debate?

Along with the never-ending chorus of LAWA sabotaging ONT . . .

masgniw · Tue May 22, 2018 8:37 pm

ANet has been chirping for years about how ONT would be a profitable + logically sound gateway to China/Taiwan. As an LA resident, I was always pretty skeptical that it would work, and these lackluster numbers seem to be backing me up.

Does this mark the end of the debate?

aaway · Tue May 22, 2018 9:21 pm

janders wrote:
I think one important point to be made here, is that even if loads were to improve at ONT, they likely would do so only with heavier discounting which does not have the routes profitability as it diminishes the yields

Similarly based on loads posted here prior, its clear the premium demand is on LAX flight. Not sure that will ever change regardless of any schedule being offered at ONT. Lastly lets remember CI is member of Skyteam and to one degree or another has connectivity (and revenue) from partner DL at LAX, something it cant do at ONT with essentially an orphan flight.

In some of the initial replies to this thread, there was pretty broad recognition of the lack domestic partner feed at the U.S. end. That situation will not change as long as CI chooses to operate at ONT.

As an alternative, what some posters - myself included - believe is that the ONT schedule should be retimed as a night operation to allow for connections at TPE. The current schedule has very limited conx opportunities at TPE that would cater to SE Asia. Think in terms of other LA area Asian populations that this service might attract.

Do agree with you wholeheartedly regarding the premium demand.

UPlog · Tue May 22, 2018 10:22 pm

Even a mega market like Mexico has a checkered history at ONT. Aeromexico just recently threw in the towel.

Makes one wonder if China Airlines was even the right airline to try ONT?
Would instead a mainland Chinese airline particularly one like Hainan be more willing to absorb losses and make the move versus a legacy alliance carrier that has a partner and long history LAX instead.

Surely the financial performance of route will become more critical as fuel prices ascent.

LAXintl · Tue May 22, 2018 10:40 pm

coolfish1103 wrote:

My mistake if it's wrong. The video I saw that CAL made for ONT procedures had CI agents. Was that an one time only case then?

Dont know about any video, but fact that staff have airline uniforms hardly means they work for the airline. Its pretty standard practice for vendors to wear client uniforms to maintain brand image.

grbauc · Tue May 22, 2018 10:54 pm

many321 wrote:
I'll digress since most who live in the San Gabriel Valley or in the I.E. its an hour 30 to 40 minutes to drive to LAX without traffic.

Takes me 55 min to get to LAX FROM Corona or 1:15 from riverside

grbauc · Wed May 23, 2018 12:04 am

masgniw wrote:
ANet has been chirping for years about how ONT would be a profitable + logically sound gateway to China/Taiwan. As an LA resident, I was always pretty skeptical that it would work, and these lackluster numbers seem to be backing me up.

Does this mark the end of the debate?

A few people that are pro ONT were but most of us were not saying that.

coolfish1103 · Wed May 23, 2018 2:49 am

janders wrote:
I think one important point to be made here, is that even if loads were to improve at ONT, they likely would do so only with heavier discounting which does not have the routes profitability as it diminishes the yields

Similarly based on loads posted here prior, its clear the premium demand is on LAX flight. Not sure that will ever change regardless of any schedule being offered at ONT. Lastly lets remember CI is member of Skyteam and to one degree or another has connectivity (and revenue) from partner DL at LAX, something it cant do at ONT with essentially an orphan flight.

Not sure CI wants to have that much capacity/flights in LA basin. That's many seats to fill with two nearby stations competing against each other for overlapping passenger base.

Yes, the premium demand has always been at the late night LAX flights. That's not going to change. Like what I have said previously, it's not logical for those who are on the other side of the 605 to take this flight. Though, from what I have seen, they are only discounting the Economy sections, so I guess they are satisfied with their current premium loading (?) at ONT.

From the loads we saw for early May that someone shared, it's certain that the problem is not just the premium demand, but the Economy section was doing poorly as well (and who is going to fill these planes? Just the Taiwanese and maybe a few from Hong Kong and Thailand?).

I certainly don't think CI wants to maintain that many seats for sale, so my mocked suggestion was to switch them all to 359 (though others from another forum said CI's 359 cannot operate LAX cause the cabin fit is too heavy) to reduce the number of seats. They can certainly just operate 3 weekly 77W at ONT and resume the LAX flight as is before.

LAXintl wrote:
Dont know about any video, but fact that staff have airline uniforms hardly means they work for the airline. Its pretty standard practice for vendors to wear client uniforms to maintain brand image.

Yes I understand it's normal that they wear the uniforms of the airline they work with to make themselves identifiable.

I was referring to this video where the agents videoed were all CI staff based in LAX. I guess it's a one time support.

https://www.facebook.com/ChinaAirlinesU ... 823619118/

masgniw wrote:
ANet has been chirping for years about how ONT would be a profitable + logically sound gateway to China/Taiwan. As an LA resident, I was always pretty skeptical that it would work, and these lackluster numbers seem to be backing me up.

Does this mark the end of the debate?

I think most of us were not thinking this route would do well when we saw it being a daytime flight using 77W plus going to daily from the get start and axing 1 LAX flight. We certainly don't think pure O/D would work in ONT. It was only doing okay with transit passengers on the LAX side for the afternoon flight. I don't think anyone with logic would find it to work with ONT miraculously. This route certainly needs the support from the South East Asia transits.

To me it feels like a political route that CI was forced to start and they are just beating the dead horse and telling their top management and ONT that this flight does not work. There is not much you can do when you cannot get transit passengers on both side of the market. It just makes no sense to have a route like this unless we are certain the local demand is there (such as TSA-HND or TSA-SHA).

UPlog wrote:
Makes one wonder if China Airlines was even the right airline to try ONT?
Would instead a mainland Chinese airline particularly one like Hainan be more willing to absorb losses and make the move versus a legacy alliance carrier that has a partner and long history LAX instead.

I don't think the idea of a Taiwanese carrier operating this flight is wrong, but CI as of now does not have the right plane to operate ONT, they don't have any 787s like the Japanese carriers.

I am unsure if absorbing losses makes Hainan the right airline to operate ONT? CI has not yet calling quit on this route, it's just some of us who feel the route would have a better usage if it's using a smaller plane, change the timing and etc.

BGS91762 · Sun May 27, 2018 7:58 am

China Airlines afternoon flight from LAX was much more O&D based then the evening flight. That’s why they moved that flight to ONT as it’s better for the LA area O&D passengers. My prediction is that it will do well for the summer on a daily schedule but will switch to a 4 day schedule for the winter season. Given the time and marketing this flight can be very successful,

bzcat · Wed May 30, 2018 1:17 am

BGS91762 wrote:
China Airlines afternoon flight from LAX was much more O&D based then the evening flight. That’s why they moved that flight to ONT as it’s better for the LA area O&D passengers. My prediction is that it will do well for the summer on a daily schedule but will switch to a 4 day schedule for the winter season. Given the time and marketing this flight can be very successful,

No, you have it backwards.

O&D passengers ex-LA area prefer the late night departure. The afternoon flight was more geared towards connecting passengers from Delta, and capture price sensitive O&D passenger who didn't want to pay a premium for the preferred late night departure.

BGS91762 · Wed May 30, 2018 3:54 am

bzcat wrote:
BGS91762 wrote:
China Airlines afternoon flight from LAX was much more O&D based then the evening flight. That’s why they moved that flight to ONT as it’s better for the LA area O&D passengers. My prediction is that it will do well for the summer on a daily schedule but will switch to a 4 day schedule for the winter season. Given the time and marketing this flight can be very successful,

No, you have it backwards.l

O&D passengers ex-LA area prefer the late night departure. The afternoon flight was more geared towards connecting passengers from Delta, and capture price sensitive O&D passenger who didn't want to pay a premium for the preferred late night departure.

Heard from my neighbor that works at ONT that the loads appear to have improved greatly from the early parts of May. Also see the prices are increasing. Hope that is a good sign.

AirAfreak · Wed May 30, 2018 10:12 am

China Airlines do not require Hallmark Aviation staff to wear the CI-issued uniform at (CI) LAX outstation.

coolfish1103 · Wed May 30, 2018 4:41 pm

BGS91762 wrote:
Heard from my neighbor that works at ONT that the loads appear to have improved greatly from the early parts of May. Also see the prices are increasing. Hope that is a good sign.

I think from mid-May semester system are in summer vacation so do expect there will be loads from latter end of May to early September (when summer ends for quarter system).

LAXintl · Wed May 30, 2018 5:24 pm

Booking comparisons

LAX
01Jun - 36/61/245
02Jun - 39/60/236
03Jun - 28/42/206
04Jun - 32/52/234
05Jun - 31/52/207
06Jun - 29/59/213
07Jun - 35/52/205

ONT
01Jun - 21/60/152
02Jun - 19/40/180
03Jun - 21/29/117
04Jun - 20/34/210
05Jun - 14/39/139
06Jun - 17/36/143
07Jun - 14/41/185

As reminder the 77W config is 40C/62W/256Y

janders · Wed May 30, 2018 5:53 pm

No shock. Premium crowd far prefers LAX and even economy bookings with discounting is weaker from ONT.

coolfish1103 · Wed May 30, 2018 7:57 pm

LAXintl wrote:
LAX
01Jun - 36/61/245 = 342 95.5
02Jun - 39/60/236 = 335 93.6
03Jun - 28/42/206 = 276 77.1
04Jun - 32/52/234 = 318 88.8
05Jun - 31/52/207 = 290 81.0
06Jun - 29/59/213 = 301 84.1
07Jun - 35/52/205 = 292 81.6

ONT
01Jun - 21/60/152 = 233 65.1 (~30.4)
02Jun - 19/40/180 = 239 66.8 (~26.8)
03Jun - 21/29/117 = 167 46.6 (~30.5)
04Jun - 20/34/210 = 264 73.7 (~15.1) (total booking exceeds Y capacity)
05Jun - 14/39/139 = 192 53.7 (~27.3)
06Jun - 17/36/143 = 196 54.7 (~29.4)
07Jun - 14/41/185 = 240 67.0 (~14.6)

As reminder the 77W config is 40C/62W/256Y = 358

Are you able to pull the figures for BR?

Adding some counts and % in. In any given day the service for ONT does not command more seats than LAX for any cabin.

I would expect the loads to look better after June 15 when quarter system and high schools are off for summer.

janders wrote:
No shock. Premium crowd far prefers LAX and even economy bookings with discounting is weaker from ONT.

I am unsure if CI is doing any discounts for these weeks. It seems the discount they had only applied to bookings until mid-May.

LAXintl · Wed May 30, 2018 11:06 pm

coolfish1103 wrote:
Are you able to pull the figures for BR?

I'll have to ask contacts.

coolfish1103 wrote:
I am unsure if CI is doing any discounts for these weeks. It seems the discount they had only applied to bookings until mid-May.

Per GDS identical economy fare buckets price almost $120-200 cheaper from ONT for month of June, while biz is consistently $500-1,100 lower from ONT for identical days.

Obviously, you can probably do even lower via ethnic consolidators.

jetero · Thu May 31, 2018 2:15 am

LAXintl wrote:
coolfish1103 wrote:
Are you able to pull the figures for BR?

I'll have to ask contacts.

coolfish1103 wrote:
I am unsure if CI is doing any discounts for these weeks. It seems the discount they had only applied to bookings until mid-May.

Per GDS identical economy fare buckets price almost $120-200 cheaper from ONT for month of June, while biz is consistently $500-1,100 lower from ONT for identical days.

Obviously, you can probably do even lower via ethnic consolidators.

So with an average one-way fare from LAX of what? $500 in Y (may be generous), $1,000 in W, and $2,000 in C, you're starting off with volume-driven (lower load factor) revenue shortfall of:

$42,000 in Y

$15,000 in W

$30,000 in C

$87,000 total volume

and price-driven shortfall of:

$20,000 in Y

$8,000 in W

$9,000 in C

$37,000 total price

$124,000 in lower revenues, say $125,000, for every ONT departure?

Those numbers sound right?

MIflyer12 · Thu May 31, 2018 4:04 am

masgniw wrote:
ANet has been chirping for years about how ONT would be a profitable + logically sound gateway to China/Taiwan. As an LA resident, I was always pretty skeptical that it would work, and these lackluster numbers seem to be backing me up.

Does this mark the end of the debate?

It's one piece of evidence. The kind of people making that assertion aren't big on logic and evidence.

Beardown91737 · Thu May 31, 2018 5:56 am

The connectivity is a problem unless there is a demand for connections to SLC.

Maybe the aircraft could get a new crew for a fifth freedom leg to JFK. That would probably make more sense from the CI market, but OIAA's goals would be better served if it was to ATL.

coolfish1103 · Sat Jun 02, 2018 3:34 pm

LAXintl wrote:
I'll have to ask contacts.

Thank you for asking.

LAXintl wrote:
Per GDS identical economy fare buckets price almost $120-200 cheaper from ONT for month of June, while biz is consistently $500-1,100 lower from ONT for identical days.

Obviously, you can probably do even lower via ethnic consolidators.

Just did some kayaking LAX departure for Economy is about 1,300-1,400, ONT is 1,200-1,300.

However, in business I cannot find such price difference though. Still around ~4,500 for both LAX and ONT.

jetero wrote:
So with an average one-way fare from LAX of what? $500 in Y (may be generous), $1,000 in W, and $2,000 in C, you're starting off with volume-driven (lower load factor) revenue shortfall of:

$42,000 in Y

$15,000 in W

$30,000 in C

$87,000 total volume

and price-driven shortfall of:

$20,000 in Y

$8,000 in W

$9,000 in C

$37,000 total price

$124,000 in lower revenues, say $125,000, for every ONT departure?

Those numbers sound right?

Summer price is hiked up a bit, so you need to add couple hundred dollars into each. Though if the price LAXintl given is correct, there is still a difference between the two cities and not certain if those waived fees in ONT can make up for it. Still, I believe there is a transit market for the evening departure from ONT, but like I said before, I would not sacrifice a LAX flight in exchange for an ONT flight. As I have said earlier, it makes no business sense to dump the afternoon LAX flight.

jetero · Sat Jun 02, 2018 3:36 pm

coolfish1103 wrote:
jetero wrote:
So with an average one-way fare from LAX of what? $500 in Y (may be generous), $1,000 in W, and $2,000 in C, you're starting off with volume-driven (lower load factor) revenue shortfall of:

$42,000 in Y

$15,000 in W

$30,000 in C

$87,000 total volume

and price-driven shortfall of:

$20,000 in Y

$8,000 in W

$9,000 in C

$37,000 total price

$124,000 in lower revenues, say $125,000, for every ONT departure?

Those numbers sound right?

Summer price is hiked up a bit, so you need to add couple hundred dollars into each. Though if the price LAXintl given is correct, there is still a difference between the two cities and not certain if those waived fees in ONT can make up for it. Still, I believe there is a transit market for the evening departure from ONT, but like I said before, I would not sacrifice a LAX flight in exchange for an ONT flight. As I have said earlier, it makes no business sense to dump the afternoon LAX flight.

Again, high-level estimate, say ONT CPE for a foreign-flag using the FIS without fee abatements would be $15 (it's certainly not more than $30, the order-of-magnitude level at LAX and other gateways). $15 times 250 passengers equals $3,750 ($7,500 if it's $30). So $125,000 revenue differential probably becomes $120,000 at best. It goes to show how worthless at the end of the day these incentives are, but of course losing $120,000 is better than losing $125,000.

If a non-airport business group is providing some sort of revenue guarantee as well, that'd be a different story.

trex8 · Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:33 pm

Don’t the ONT incentives also include landing and gate fees etc. anyone have a ballpark what that costs?

jetero · Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:35 pm

trex8 wrote:
Don’t the ONT incentives also include landing and gate fees etc. anyone have a ballpark what that costs?

CPE as presented above is an approximation of all fees paid by airlines to the airport.

Landing fees + terminal rents/user fees + FIS user fees = Total airline payments / enplaned passengers = Cost per enplanement

BobbyPSP · Sat Jun 02, 2018 6:06 pm

many321 wrote:
coolfish1103 wrote:

You meant weekly for CI? I still believe there is a case for ONT, but it needs to be operated at the right time frame with right aircraft. CAL does not have the right aircraft like ANA, but they should at least try to time it to night flight before calling quit.

A plausible case for CAL would be to keep the original operations at LAX but reduce the number of seats. By operating 359 in this route they will have a superior hardware product in every single way compared to EVA, but they will lose significant amount of Premium Economy passengers because 359 has less seats in configuration.

359 C32W31Y243 v. 77W C40W62Y256
3x = C96W93Y729 v. 2x = C80W124Y512

~~EVA has mostly C39W56Y258 in operation, current 3x daily yields = C117W168Y774, but can drop to Y238 here to compete with Y714.~~
Corrected by below post: EVA has most C38W56Y238 in operation for LAX, so current 3x daily yields approximately C114W168Y714.

Maybe they could start off with this...? 14 weekly 359 to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT (or 12 weekly 77W to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT).

CI 5 1555-2055 5
CI 6 1640-1330 daily
CI 7 0005-0500+1 daily
CI 8 2350-2250 daily
CI 9 0035-0530+1 2 weekly (46)

CI 23 2310-2020 5 weekly (12456)
CI 24 0025-0535+1 5 weekly (12357)

Yup, weekly.

I checked ONT website and noticed they have a general comment section. I went ahead and wrote a letter regarding the rumors of CI leaving due to low passenger numbers. I told them about the flight's potential since community is just there, though they needed to swap the flights to night and justified it by talking about o&d who would rather travel at night, and the connecting passengers who would rather leave from LAX due to short 2 hour layover in TPE for destinations like Manila and Saigon than 10 hr layover in TPE if they left from ONT. In addition, told them they would siphon traffic from BR though, didn't go as detail with a mock schedule as you have here for them to see if it's possible.

I haven't heard a reply from them and I highly doubt they'll take my suggestion, though if you or anyone else could go and comment about this though giving them detail numbers such as coolfish did, they might go and push CI to do something.

While your points are valid (many on this thread have discussed this). I’d imagine ONT airport management is very well aware of this information.

What they might want to hear, from folks actively traveling, are comments about not being able to get to their final destination out of ONT due to limited connections at TPE and that they went for an LAX departure.

BGS91762 · Sat Jun 02, 2018 6:10 pm

coolfish1103 wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
I'll have to ask contacts.

Thank you for asking.

LAXintl wrote:
Per GDS identical economy fare buckets price almost $120-200 cheaper from ONT for month of June, while biz is consistently $500-1,100 lower from ONT for identical days.

Obviously, you can probably do even lower via ethnic consolidators.

Just did some kayaking LAX departure for Economy is about 1,300-1,400, ONT is 1,200-1,300.

However, in business I cannot find such price difference though. Still around ~4,500 for both LAX and ONT.

jetero wrote:
So with an average one-way fare from LAX of what? $500 in Y (may be generous), $1,000 in W, and $2,000 in C, you're starting off with volume-driven (lower load factor) revenue shortfall of:

$42,000 in Y

$15,000 in W

$30,000 in C

$87,000 total volume

and price-driven shortfall of:

$20,000 in Y

$8,000 in W

$9,000 in C

$37,000 total price

$124,000 in lower revenues, say $125,000, for every ONT departure?

Those numbers sound right?

Summer price is hiked up a bit, so you need to add couple hundred dollars into each. Though if the price LAXintl given is correct, there is still a difference between the two cities and not certain if those waived fees in ONT can make up for it. Still, I believe there is a transit market for the evening departure from ONT, but like I said before, I would not sacrifice a LAX flight in exchange for an ONT flight. As I have said earlier, it makes no business sense to dump the afternoon LAX flight.

My friend took this flight last week and business class was very full. Probably the reason for the prices in business not being lower than LAX. Not surprising as most of the Taiwanese businesses and owners are based in the SGV.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net