First day's numbers for F9's return to FAT were pretty impressive according to news reports. The Airport reported the first flight was full, while one news report stated 220 were on-board. Seat maps about an hour prior to flight showed inbound was just about full and the outbound had more seats available. But, if you've ever watched an F9 seat map on the day of departure, it can be an interesting progression as a mostly empty seat map fills up as passengers check-in. Seems as most don't book seats or take whatever is assigned when they show up at the airport.

When they first announced the service to DEN was coming back, it was an early afternoon one-stop to ORD on a 320. That was later moved to an evening flight to DEN on a 321. That's a ton of seats to fill with few red-eye connections, but it looks as if F9 came roaring back into Fresno. As SBA and SMF are also getting the evening flights into DEN, I suspect that their red-eye bank East will grow?

Previously, the carrier commonly ran 90+ LF on the 320's to DEN. Last time, UA would match F9's fares at least on a limited basis. This time, UA seems to be ignoring F9 completely.

Here's a link to one local news outlet's coverage:

http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/f ... 1193963899

FAT is on the schedule into November at this point.

Sadly WN continues to miss this boat.

n471wn wrote:

Sadly WN continues to miss this boat.

Is FAT the only major airport in California left for WN to fly to? Well, besides PSP that is.

Glad to learn the new flights are being received well. As the cheaper, introductory, fares are used; it will be interesting if the pax numbers remain good. Time will tell.

Frontier 14

I’m hoping they will duplicate SMF’s schedule and add LAS 2X-3X per week as well. Could easily do Fr Mo or Fr Su Mo to LAS.

I saw her last night. They now fly the largest pax a/c to FAT. I hope it sticks around this time.

evank516 wrote:

n471wn wrote:

Sadly WN continues to miss this boat.

Is FAT the only major airport in California left for WN to fly to? Well, besides PSP that is.

Depends on your definition of "major" but PSP, FAT, SBA are the biggest airports they don't serve.

The population of Palm Springs isn’t even in the top 100 list of largest populations in California. I would add SCK at over 300,000. FAT is over 500,000

kingcavalier wrote:

The population of Palm Springs isn’t even in the top 100 list of largest populations in California. I would add SCK at over 300,000. FAT is over 500,000

But PSP does feed from some of the eastern Inland Empire. Sometimes it can be faster to drive to PSP than ONT. Then you also have the rest of the Coachella Valley. There's quite a bit of $ out there.

It's wonderful to hear encouraging numbers coming in right from the start, What'! I hope the loads will hold up; you're right, that 321 is a lot of plane to fill up. (Is DEN a daily flight?)

Seems possible that if DEN does hold up and do well, who knows what F9 might try next? More DEN? LAS? SAT? (They seem to be adding flights from SAT to everywhere!)

Are there any particular niche-type p-2-p routes that could work from FAT that you know of What'? That's the kind of thing that some cx like to try today.

I'm glad to see FAT getting some attention. And with that expansion happening at FAT, who knows what or whom could show up in the near future!?

bb

Nice to see more service at FAT. F9 seems like a good carrier but they need to revise that livery. They seem to struggle with brand identity.

Happy for FR. Since they changed their business a few years back I've flown them a couple of times and even though they're low cost, they're a nice airline and their employees are nice. I was even moved up to the front seat once that I looked like crap after flying for 16 hours for free.

Really surprised to see them change the one-stop A320 to ORD to the evening A321, but of course F9's schedule is always rotating. And with UA starting ORD in June I can see why they would change the scheduling.

I would love to see FAT attract some more carriers and routes. DL is sorely lacking, with the lone route to SLC. It'd be nice to see FAT-MSP/ATL/SEA on DL but from what I've understood, UA and AA have really cornered the business market in FAT.

The other elephant in the room is always WN, as previously mentioned FAT is their largest unserved market in the US and I would love to see them here serving LAS, SAN, HNL, DEN, MDW, and HOU from the Central Valley.

Things are looking up for us FAT flyers, and hopefully F9 is here to stay this time around!

bd777 wrote:

I would love to see FAT attract some more carriers and routes. DL is sorely lacking, with the lone route to SLC. It'd be nice to see FAT-MSP/ATL/SEA on DL but from what I've understood, UA and AA have really cornered the business market in FAT.

DL does already have nonstop service to its LAX hub from other West Coast airports, including SEA, GEG, PDX, SFO, OAK, SJC, and SAN. DL adding FAT-LAX is not out of the realm of possibility with DL already serving some West Coast destinations other than its SEA hub nonstop from LAX.

I also agree that DL could possibly add FAT-SEA nonstop service since DL has been expanding at SEA in order to compete against AS in the SEA market. I also agree that DL does have opportunities to add nonstop service to its ATL and MSP hubs from FAT.

n471wn wrote:

Sadly WN continues to miss this boat.

It took WN some time to add MEM to DEN after continued impressive F9 loads

kingcavalier wrote:

The population of Palm Springs isn’t even in the top 100 list of largest populations in California. I would add SCK at over 300,000. FAT is over 500,000

Population has little to do with PSP, its a destination in and of itself the likes of which FAT and SCK will never be. Of course, as a an av-geek I would to see both FAT and SCK get more service.

jplatts wrote:

bd777 wrote:

I would love to see FAT attract some more carriers and routes. DL is sorely lacking, with the lone route to SLC. It'd be nice to see FAT-MSP/ATL/SEA on DL but from what I've understood, UA and AA have really cornered the business market in FAT.

DL does already have nonstop service to its LAX hub from other West Coast airports, including SEA, GEG, PDX, SFO, OAK, SJC, and SAN. DL adding FAT-LAX is not out of the realm of possibility with DL already serving some West Coast destinations other than its SEA hub nonstop from LAX.

I also agree that DL could possibly add FAT-SEA nonstop service since DL has been expanding at SEA in order to compete against AS in the SEA market. I also agree that DL does have opportunities to add nonstop service to its ATL and MSP hubs from FAT.

I would be very surprised if DL opens FAT-SEA. I'm sure they have much bigger fish to fry with the very limited number of gates they have in SEA.

OzarkD9S wrote:

kingcavalier wrote:

The population of Palm Springs isn’t even in the top 100 list of largest populations in California. I would add SCK at over 300,000. FAT is over 500,000

Population has little to do with PSP, its a destination in and of itself the likes of which FAT and SCK will never be. Of course, as a an av-geek I would to see both FAT and SCK get more service.

You cannot look at the city populations, Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or Consolidated Statistical Area (CSA) populations are a little better although they do not always reflect the airport market areas.

Of course PSP is a bit unique due to its tourist traffic

In the case of the other 2 area populations:
Fresno-Madera, CA Combined Statistical Area - population of 1,146,145
Stockton-Lodi, CA MSA (part of San Francisco CSA) - population of 745,424

But FAT is also the closest commercial service for both the Visalia-Porterville, CA MSA (population of 464,493) and Hanford-Corcoran, CA MSA (population of 150,101) which adds another over 600,000 in population to FAT's market area.

Of course that also doesn't count the "Yosemite" part of the name Fresno Yosemite International Airport.

SANFan wrote:

It's wonderful to hear encouraging numbers coming in right from the start, What'! I hope the loads will hold up; you're right, that 321 is a lot of plane to fill up. (Is DEN a daily flight?)

Seems possible that if DEN does hold up and do well, who knows what F9 might try next? More DEN? LAS? SAT? (They seem to be adding flights from SAT to everywhere!)

Are there any particular niche-type p-2-p routes that could work from FAT that you know of What'? That's the kind of thing that some cx like to try today.

I'm glad to see FAT getting some attention. And with that expansion happening at FAT, who knows what or whom could show up in the near future!?

bb

Hey SANFan. I'd say LAS would be a good move. While G4 was born at FAT and is adding flights and 320's, there's a real distrust of their on-time performance and F9 would be a welcome add. There's not enough capacity on Thur/Fri, even with two G4 320s. LAS would also grab attention of the infrequent flyers as to what else is available on F9 through DEN.

Might be interesting to watch if F9 takes another look at ORD. UA's new ORD service looks to have decent advance bookings inbound, but the red-eye to ORD isn't packing them in. It's the same as we see on AA's red-eye to DFW - strong inbound, but just so-so outbound. The demand to ORD is there, but not at 11pm on a 175 - I like 175s but not four better than four hours.

One other question is the code share between Y4 and F9. Y4 packs flights each night. March numbers showed better than 160+ pax to GDL and 144 on the MLM flights. It's possible to connect from DEN to Mexico through FAT but not in reverse, unless you're into a very long layover. I am wondering when the synergies will begin through this codeshare. FAT looks to be ready for a Leon flight and expanded MLM. GDL is like LAS - you bring the flight, people will come. F9 could funnel some traffic to Y4 through here.

I do hope that F9 puts a dent into this market. There's potential and with traffic ahead of all previous records, and thousands of new jobs, and home building activity across the river in Madera County at unheard of levels, it's time that somebody awakens the latent demand to support an true low cost carrier.

Note: Southwest, we're not holding our breath. I was talking with a Southwest Sales Rep a week ago who actually laughed when I brought up Fresno and he said "what's wrong with Oakland". Hey WN - we're not Oakland, we're Fresno. There is 1.5 million who live in the FAT capture area and we're tired of the long drive to catch your flights. You can sit on 580 for hours across Altamont, but I'm not going to.

whatusaid wrote:

Last time, UA would match F9's fares at least on a limited basis. This time, UA seems to be ignoring F9 completely.

I've noticed that too. $100 fares on F9 vs $400 fares on UA for FAT. The difference for SBA is even wider.

UA seems pretty confident they can charge 4-5x more in these markets. Some of these bundles on F9 for less than $100 more are giving you a refundable ticket, no change fees, free checked bag, extra legroom seating.

whatusaid wrote:

SANFan wrote:

It's wonderful to hear encouraging numbers coming in right from the start, What'! I hope the loads will hold up; you're right, that 321 is a lot of plane to fill up. (Is DEN a daily flight?)

Seems possible that if DEN does hold up and do well, who knows what F9 might try next? More DEN? LAS? SAT? (They seem to be adding flights from SAT to everywhere!)

Are there any particular niche-type p-2-p routes that could work from FAT that you know of What'? That's the kind of thing that some cx like to try today.

I'm glad to see FAT getting some attention. And with that expansion happening at FAT, who knows what or whom could show up in the near future!?

bb

Hey SANFan. I'd say LAS would be a good move. While G4 was born at FAT and is adding flights and 320's, there's a real distrust of their on-time performance and F9 would be a welcome add. There's not enough capacity on Thur/Fri, even with two G4 320s. LAS would also grab attention of the infrequent flyers as to what else is available on F9 through DEN.

Might be interesting to watch if F9 takes another look at ORD. UA's new ORD service looks to have decent advance bookings inbound, but the red-eye to ORD isn't packing them in. It's the same as we see on AA's red-eye to DFW - strong inbound, but just so-so outbound. The demand to ORD is there, but not at 11pm on a 175 - I like 175s but not four better than four hours.

One other question is the code share between Y4 and F9. Y4 packs flights each night. March numbers showed better than 160+ pax to GDL and 144 on the MLM flights. It's possible to connect from DEN to Mexico through FAT but not in reverse, unless you're into a very long layover. I am wondering when the synergies will begin through this codeshare. FAT looks to be ready for a Leon flight and expanded MLM. GDL is like LAS - you bring the flight, people will come. F9 could funnel some traffic to Y4 through here.

I do hope that F9 puts a dent into this market. There's potential and with traffic ahead of all previous records, and thousands of new jobs, and home building activity across the river in Madera County at unheard of levels, it's time that somebody awakens the latent demand to support an true low cost carrier.

Note: Southwest, we're not holding our breath. I was talking with a Southwest Sales Rep a week ago who actually laughed when I brought up Fresno and he said "what's wrong with Oakland". Hey WN - we're not Oakland, we're Fresno. There is 1.5 million who live in the FAT capture area and we're tired of the long drive to catch your flights. You can sit on 580 for hours across Altamont, but I'm not going to.

Alternatively, fly Boutique Air out of Merced. Now that's a way to get to OAK.

whatusaid wrote:

SANFan wrote:

It's wonderful to hear encouraging numbers coming in right from the start, What'! I hope the loads will hold up; you're right, that 321 is a lot of plane to fill up. (Is DEN a daily flight?)

Seems possible that if DEN does hold up and do well, who knows what F9 might try next? More DEN? LAS? SAT? (They seem to be adding flights from SAT to everywhere!)

Are there any particular niche-type p-2-p routes that could work from FAT that you know of What'? That's the kind of thing that some cx like to try today.

I'm glad to see FAT getting some attention. And with that expansion happening at FAT, who knows what or whom could show up in the near future!?

bb

Hey SANFan. I'd say LAS would be a good move. While G4 was born at FAT and is adding flights and 320's, there's a real distrust of their on-time performance and F9 would be a welcome add. There's not enough capacity on Thur/Fri, even with two G4 320s. LAS would also grab attention of the infrequent flyers as to what else is available on F9 through DEN.

Might be interesting to watch if F9 takes another look at ORD. UA's new ORD service looks to have decent advance bookings inbound, but the red-eye to ORD isn't packing them in. It's the same as we see on AA's red-eye to DFW - strong inbound, but just so-so outbound. The demand to ORD is there, but not at 11pm on a 175 - I like 175s but not four better than four hours.

One other question is the code share between Y4 and F9. Y4 packs flights each night. March numbers showed better than 160+ pax to GDL and 144 on the MLM flights. It's possible to connect from DEN to Mexico through FAT but not in reverse, unless you're into a very long layover. I am wondering when the synergies will begin through this codeshare. FAT looks to be ready for a Leon flight and expanded MLM. GDL is like LAS - you bring the flight, people will come. F9 could funnel some traffic to Y4 through here.

I do hope that F9 puts a dent into this market. There's potential and with traffic ahead of all previous records, and thousands of new jobs, and home building activity across the river in Madera County at unheard of levels, it's time that somebody awakens the latent demand to support an true low cost carrier.

Note: Southwest, we're not holding our breath. I was talking with a Southwest Sales Rep a week ago who actually laughed when I brought up Fresno and he said "what's wrong with Oakland". Hey WN - we're not Oakland, we're Fresno. There is 1.5 million who live in the FAT capture area and we're tired of the long drive to catch your flights. You can sit on 580 for hours across Altamont, but I'm not going to.

1) Why is it acceptable to say “what’s wrong with OAK” to people who live in/around Fresno, but not to people in SMF/SJC? I’ve heard this excuse before, and while it’s partially true (many people drive to OAK), it’s also annoying to hear it.
2) I think we talked about this in another thread, but FAT needs at least 3 int’l capable gates. At the current rate of growth, and with almost all int’l flights departing between 22:00 and 02:00, it’s very short sighted to only build 2. I wouldn’t be surprised to see BJX and/or MEX within 5 years, but only with enough infrastructure.
3) If Southwest is anything like other majors, their network planning department stays very tight lipped about new service, even internally. A sales rep might have slightly more info than the general public, but often they only hear about new cities just before the rest of the world does. So all hope isn’t lost...

evank516 wrote:

n471wn wrote:

Sadly WN continues to miss this boat.

Is FAT the only major airport in California left for WN to fly to? Well, besides PSP that is.

Not enough pax to support the critical mass Southwest needs to enter a market.

whatusaid wrote:

Note: Southwest, we're not holding our breath. I was talking with a Southwest Sales Rep a week ago who actually laughed when I brought up Fresno and he said "what's wrong with Oakland". Hey WN - we're not Oakland, we're Fresno. There is 1.5 million who live in the FAT capture area and we're tired of the long drive to catch your flights. You can sit on 580 for hours across Altamont, but I'm not going to.

flyfresno wrote:

1) Why is it acceptable to say “what’s wrong with OAK” to people who live in/around Fresno, but not to people in SMF/SJC? I’ve heard this excuse before, and while it’s partially true (many people drive to OAK), it’s also annoying to hear it.

We could always spin the Sales Rep's comments to mean that he really thinks the OAK station's profitability would be hurt without potential Fresno area passengers.

DL717 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

n471wn wrote:

Sadly WN continues to miss this boat.

Is FAT the only major airport in California left for WN to fly to? Well, besides PSP that is.

Not enough pax to support the critical mass Southwest needs to enter a market.

Does that still matter? WN's business model has deviated drastically.

evank516 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Is FAT the only major airport in California left for WN to fly to? Well, besides PSP that is.

Not enough pax to support the critical mass Southwest needs to enter a market.

Does that still matter? WN's business model has deviated drastically.

Not that they are apples to apples comparisons, but SWA serves multiple airports that have fewer yearly domestic pax than FAT:

FNT (although that's ending this week)
AMA
CRP
LBB
MAF
ECP

flyfresno wrote:

evank516 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

Not enough pax to support the critical mass Southwest needs to enter a market.

Does that still matter? WN's business model has deviated drastically.

Not that they are apples to apples comparisons, but SWA serves multiple airports that have fewer yearly domestic pax than FAT:

FNT (although that's ending this week)
AMA
CRP
LBB
MAF
ECP

Almost all the airports you mentioned have been WN stations for years and are in Texas which is WN's base.

whatusaid wrote:

Might be interesting to watch if F9 takes another look at ORD. UA's new ORD service looks to have decent advance bookings inbound, but the red-eye to ORD isn't packing them in. It's the same as we see on AA's red-eye to DFW - strong inbound, but just so-so outbound. The demand to ORD is there, but not at 11pm on a 175 - I like 175s but not four better than four hours.

Just looking at tonight, FAT-ORD premium cabin booked higher than ORD-FAT, and both directions have filled up to over 80%. Granted, premium fares aren’t *that* much higher (about $200 more), but nice to see people are booking it.

On another thought, I wonder if the red-eye was partially chosen due to lack of catering in FAT. Granted, AA round-trips meals (which is an iffy practice), and who knows what AM does, but if this was a morning departure, there would need to be a meal in first...

With the growth of longer flights, I’m wondering if it’s just a matter of time before LSG or another catering company opens shop.

FAT appears to be moving up the schedule for some infrastructure growth projects. These are projects that previously were thought not to be needed for 5 to 10 years out. Given transportation changes from alternatives like Uber and Lyft these are interesting projects to see.

The proposed 2018-19 city budget includes $5 million to build additional long-term parking at FAT. The city council a few weeks ago approved a contract to design the expanded parking. It appears the current plan is to complete the parking changes by 2020.

The current employee parking and cell phone lots will be converted to long-term passenger parking. Additional long-term parking, a replacement cell phone lot and a replacement employee lot will be built between the terminal and the Air National Guard along the terminal entrance roadway. The result will be 750 new additional long-term spaces (currently there are 1,800 long-term spots).

This could be phasing to prepare for construction of a new parking garage in the current surface lot across from the terminal. Or it could be preparation for new passenger growth in the next two years.

The City Council will discuss the 2018-19 airport budget on Monday.

Interesting...didn't know that AA was doing an overnight from FAT to DFW.

dfwjim1 wrote:

Interesting...didn't know that AA was doing an overnight from FAT to DFW.

Seasonal flight. It adds a 3rd roundtrip during FAT's peak season.

dfwjim1 wrote:

Interesting...didn't know that AA was doing an overnight from FAT to DFW.

Last summer, it only operated 2-3 nights per week and only ran for about a month. This summer, it operates 4-5 nights per week and runs for about 2 months. Progress...

FATFlyer wrote:

FAT appears to be moving up the schedule for some infrastructure growth projects. These are projects that previously were thought not to be needed for 5 to 10 years out. Given transportation changes from alternatives like Uber and Lyft these are interesting projects to see.

The proposed 2018-19 city budget includes $5 million to build additional long-term parking at FAT. The city council a few weeks ago approved a contract to design the expanded parking. It appears the current plan is to complete the parking changes by 2020.

The current employee parking and cell phone lots will be converted to long-term passenger parking. Additional long-term parking, a replacement cell phone lot and a replacement employee lot will be built between the terminal and the Air National Guard along the terminal entrance roadway. The result will be 750 new additional long-term spaces (currently there are 1,800 long-term spots).

This could be phasing to prepare for construction of a new parking garage in the current surface lot across from the terminal. Or it could be preparation for new passenger growth in the next two years.

The City Council will discuss the 2018-19 airport budget on Monday.

I saw that. If you look at the master plan update, priority is given to cheaper alternatives (ie, more surface lot space vs a parking garage). That said, there are a few downsides to continuing to build surface parking, I think:

1) Spreading out the parking half way to Clovis Avenue (an exaggeration, but you get my point) creates a need for either a shuttle bus or a very long walk. Additionally, placing paid parking across the terminal roadway will necessitate building more facilities to collect parking revenue.

2) If the airport waits too long and growth continues at the current pace, it won't have enough space to put alternate parking while a garage is built.

3) Spreading out parking too much takes away space that could be used for terminal and/or ramp expansion (I don't think any parking should be built northeast of the terminal roadway, and that land should be reserved for terminal expansion).

4) As is being seen right now, it's far too easy to get behind when such small incremental parking phases are built. The airport just finished a parking expansion, and already a new one has to be built because the latest parking expansion is already being filled on peak days. I'm no expert, but it seems that building a three story parking garage all at once, even for a price, and then having enough parking for 10+ years to come would be a much better option than adding a few hundred spaces at a time. I know the airport is scared about uber/lyft taking away all their parking business, and parking growth has slowed a bit because of them, but you don't see the same rideshare usage as in bigger cities like SF/LA.

5) The hodge-podge growth strategy creates, IMHO, poor aesthetics and not so used friendly facilities.

I can certainly appreciate the airport not wanting to build too fast and then being left with lots of extra parking spaces that are not being used, as well as the fact that no outside public funds other than FAA and Measure C grants are being used for expansion projects, but there has to be a happy medium between being fiscally responsible and having a user friendly and fictional product.

All that said, I think it's just a matter of time before a private parking company moves in across the street somewhere. That WILL take a chunk out of the airport's revenue.

flyfresno wrote:

whatusaid wrote:

Might be interesting to watch if F9 takes another look at ORD. UA's new ORD service looks to have decent advance bookings inbound, but the red-eye to ORD isn't packing them in. It's the same as we see on AA's red-eye to DFW - strong inbound, but just so-so outbound. The demand to ORD is there, but not at 11pm on a 175 - I like 175s but not four better than four hours.

Just looking at tonight, FAT-ORD premium cabin booked higher than ORD-FAT, and both directions have filled up to over 80%. Granted, premium fares aren’t *that* much higher (about $200 more), but nice to see people are booking it.

On another thought, I wonder if the red-eye was partially chosen due to lack of catering in FAT. Granted, AA round-trips meals (which is an iffy practice), and who knows what AM does, but if this was a morning departure, there would need to be a meal in first...

With the growth of longer flights, I’m wondering if it’s just a matter of time before LSG or another catering company opens shop.

Have you noticed that two of the three F9 FAT-DEN were sold out this week? At least one of next week's is already sold out. I've noticed the fares are moving up to where they're now approaching SJC-DEN... How they fill 230 seats at 7:10pm on a Tuesday is hard to believe, but they're doing it. There must be significant pent up demand to go East cheap, even if your flight includes an overnight stay on the carpet at DEN before your connecting flight. I expect FAT to get the seasonal F9 treatment or at least a downgrade to a 320 after Nov 14, but I also didn't expect they'd even see an extension into November to begin with.

I didn't expect to see UA's Red-eye doing as well as it is. FAT-ORD seat maps are looking much stronger than a couple weeks back. Maybe there's hope that this will return or will see daylight next year?

whatusaid wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

whatusaid wrote:

Might be interesting to watch if F9 takes another look at ORD. UA's new ORD service looks to have decent advance bookings inbound, but the red-eye to ORD isn't packing them in. It's the same as we see on AA's red-eye to DFW - strong inbound, but just so-so outbound. The demand to ORD is there, but not at 11pm on a 175 - I like 175s but not four better than four hours.

Just looking at tonight, FAT-ORD premium cabin booked higher than ORD-FAT, and both directions have filled up to over 80%. Granted, premium fares aren’t *that* much higher (about $200 more), but nice to see people are booking it.

On another thought, I wonder if the red-eye was partially chosen due to lack of catering in FAT. Granted, AA round-trips meals (which is an iffy practice), and who knows what AM does, but if this was a morning departure, there would need to be a meal in first...

With the growth of longer flights, I’m wondering if it’s just a matter of time before LSG or another catering company opens shop.

Have you noticed that two of the three F9 FAT-DEN were sold out this week? At least one of next week's is already sold out. I've noticed the fares are moving up to where they're now approaching SJC-DEN... How they fill 230 seats at 7:10pm on a Tuesday is hard to believe, but they're doing it. There must be significant pent up demand to go East cheap, even if your flight includes an overnight stay on the carpet at DEN before your connecting flight. I expect FAT to get the seasonal F9 treatment or at least a downgrade to a 320 after Nov 14, but I also didn't expect they'd even see an extension into November to begin with.

I didn't expect to see UA's Red-eye doing as well as it is. FAT-ORD seat maps are looking much stronger than a couple weeks back. Maybe there's hope that this will return or will see daylight next year?

Being as October into the beginning of November is the second slowest season of the year, and also being as things will pick back up for late November (with a short slump in the beginning of December) and into the holidays, I can't see how they could stop service before the second week in January. I do think Jan and Feb will likely be out, though. Maybe this service is doing so well, they will even put it to 4X per week next spring/summer, or supplement it with LAS as they did in SMF? A one stop past DEN would be nice too...ORD seems to be taken, but DCA/LGA/MCO are all higher O/D destinations out of FAT without direct service.

Hopefully ORD on UA extends into the fall and winter. That's another route I can see being dumped in January and February and then resumed before Spring Break, at least 5X per week.

Only time will tell?

whatusaid wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

whatusaid wrote:

Might be interesting to watch if F9 takes another look at ORD. UA's new ORD service looks to have decent advance bookings inbound, but the red-eye to ORD isn't packing them in. It's the same as we see on AA's red-eye to DFW - strong inbound, but just so-so outbound. The demand to ORD is there, but not at 11pm on a 175 - I like 175s but not four better than four hours.

Just looking at tonight, FAT-ORD premium cabin booked higher than ORD-FAT, and both directions have filled up to over 80%. Granted, premium fares aren’t *that* much higher (about $200 more), but nice to see people are booking it.

On another thought, I wonder if the red-eye was partially chosen due to lack of catering in FAT. Granted, AA round-trips meals (which is an iffy practice), and who knows what AM does, but if this was a morning departure, there would need to be a meal in first...

With the growth of longer flights, I’m wondering if it’s just a matter of time before LSG or another catering company opens shop.

Have you noticed that two of the three F9 FAT-DEN were sold out this week? At least one of next week's is already sold out. I've noticed the fares are moving up to where they're now approaching SJC-DEN... How they fill 230 seats at 7:10pm on a Tuesday is hard to believe, but they're doing it. There must be significant pent up demand to go East cheap, even if your flight includes an overnight stay on the carpet at DEN before your connecting flight. I expect FAT to get the seasonal F9 treatment or at least a downgrade to a 320 after Nov 14, but I also didn't expect they'd even see an extension into November to begin with.

I didn't expect to see UA's Red-eye doing as well as it is. FAT-ORD seat maps are looking much stronger than a couple weeks back. Maybe there's hope that this will return or will see daylight next year?

Not all eastward connections require overnight stays in DEN. In fact, F9 runs red eyes from DEN to several large metro areas in the eastern U.S. requiring only 1-2hour stops in DEN. MCO, PVD, CLT, RDU, IAD, ATL, PHL, and MIA (switching from mid-afternoon departure to red eye in August) are all available via a short(ish) stop in DEN.

flyfresno wrote:

I saw that. If you look at the master plan update, priority is given to cheaper alternatives (ie, more surface lot space vs a parking garage). That said, there are a few downsides to continuing to build surface parking, I think:

The surface parking project would be needed even if the airport was already planning for parking garage construction in the next few years. Alternative 2 in the master plan analysis, which is a parking structure, stated they would still build the same new surface lots to maintain capacity during garage construction.

The real difference in the parking alternatives is a timing question for parking structure construction. Wait too long to plan and start a garage project and parking becomes an issue during construction if enplanements see a rapid growth spurt. Start too soon and have to identify revenue sources to cover construction costs until parking demand and revenue rises.

Given design, bidding, and financing timelines I hope they start doing preliminary garage planning to be ready to quickly move when needed.

F9LASDEN wrote:

Not all eastward connections require overnight stays in DEN. In fact, F9 runs red eyes from DEN to several large metro areas in the eastern U.S. requiring only 1-2hour stops in DEN. MCO, PVD, CLT, RDU, IAD, ATL, PHL, and MIA (switching from mid-afternoon departure to red eye in August) are all available via a short(ish) stop in DEN.

Most of those cities currently do not work for FAT flights as a 1 or 2 hour connection both ways.

While they are short connections outbound from Fresno (assuming no FAT delays and missed connections), most of those require 6 to 8 hour layovers to connect westbound to Fresno.

On the other hand there are other cities with short connections westbound to Fresno but long connections eastbound out of Fresno.

Not a knock on F9, but with the current schedule Fresno travelers are having to endure long connections one direction or the other depending upon the destination.

FATFlyer wrote:

Not a knock on F9, but with the current schedule Fresno travelers are having to endure long connections one direction or the other depending upon the destination.

Based on the bookings quoted here, it seems they're quite happy with it. Or - if not happy - they do it anyway. LOL.

mariner

mariner wrote:

FATFlyer wrote:

Not a knock on F9, but with the current schedule Fresno travelers are having to endure long connections one direction or the other depending upon the destination.

Based on the bookings quoted here, it seems they're quite happy with it. Or - if not happy - they do it anyway. LOL.

mariner

Yes they are doing it. As I said it was not a knock on F9, sorry you seem to have taken it that way based on your LOL.

I was simply making it clear that the previous post was only looking at one connection direction when using the term "short(ish)". The connection time is short one direction but longer in the other for many of those cities out of FAT.

FATFlyer wrote:

Yes they are doing it. As I said it was not a knock on F9, sorry you seem to have taken it that way based on your LOL.

I was simply making it clear that the previous post was only looking at one connection direction when using the term "short(ish)". The connection time is short one direction but longer in the other for many of those cities out of FAT.

I didn't take it as a knock on Frontier - quite the reverse. I've avoided Frontier threads because I've always said that if they became successful I'd duck out. Well - they have, financially, and I've largely ducked out.

Biut I haven't forgotten my old love completely.

mariner

I think there were a couple nonrev’s, but the redeye went out completely full last night...and almost an hour late.

mariner wrote:

I didn't take it as a knock on Frontier - quite the reverse. I've avoided Frontier threads because I've always said that if they became successful I'd duck out. Well - they have, financially, and I've largely ducked out.

But I haven't forgotten my old love completely.

mariner

Off topic for sure, Mariner, but I always enjoyed your "back and forth" with Enilria and others on the weekly OAG threads. You were definitely one of the few who thought F9 could pull it off. They do try a lof of routes, and if they don't stick, they cancel. But as long as your winners outnumber your losers, you do ok.

It seems FAT is a winner. That's great for them and for FAT.

mariner wrote:

FATFlyer wrote:

Yes they are doing it. As I said it was not a knock on F9, sorry you seem to have taken it that way based on your LOL.

I was simply making it clear that the previous post was only looking at one connection direction when using the term "short(ish)". The connection time is short one direction but longer in the other for many of those cities out of FAT.

I didn't take it as a knock on Frontier - quite the reverse. I've avoided Frontier threads because I've always said that if they became successful I'd duck out. Well - they have, financially, and I've largely ducked out.

Biut I haven't forgotten my old love completely.

mariner

How much do they pay you?

Midwestindy wrote:

How much do they pay you?

So American - everything has to have a dime attached to it.

If only - LOL.

mariner

According to the airport, SW will not expand to any more CA airports for the next two years:

http://abc30.com/travel/fresnos-airport ... s/3592430/

Service must be doing well: it’s been expanded into February. Looks like year round? Will echo what I said earlier about an even better schedule:

Keep: Th: Same DEN schedule
Add: Fr: Arrival from DEN at same time but departure TO LAS in place of DEN. Su: Arrival from LAS at same time as DEN arrives in its place, departure TO DEN at same time. Mo/We: Swap DEN to these days, same time.
Remove: Tu: to/from DEN.

The above adds one DEN RT and one LAS, but improves service to 5 days per week.

Service would look like this:

Su: from LAS, to DEN
Mo We Th: DEN RT
Fr: from DEN, to LAS

Extending the schedule past FAT's slow period in January is a good sign that it is year-round instead of seasonal.

The next future schedule dates to watch will be after May 2019. Per the airport incentive program F9 should have received a 1 year waiver of landing fees plus cash marketing support. The schedule after the fee waiver ends should provide more indications of how the route is performing.