Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
BMWdrvr75
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:23 pm

WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:51 am

With the Coachella Valley growing and helping to improve the economy in Riverside County. I cannot understand WN's logic on not serving PSP and instead marketing ONT as a PSP gateway. Below is an excerpt from a letter written to a WN customer and Palm Springs local asking the mayor and city council for their help in getting WN to PSP.. Mayor Robert Moon wrote...
"Although we would love to add SW Airlines these efforts to date have been ineffective. However we do have a number of other airlines. A table of these airlines and their nonstop destinations is below. We just recently added daily nonstop flights to Newark, which is not yet shown on this table."

AIRLINES NONSTOP DESTINATIONS
AIR CANADA Toronto - Vancouver
ALASKA -(VIRGIN AMERICA) New York JFK - Portland - San Francisco - Seattle
ALLEGIANT Bellingham
AMERICAN Chicago - Dallas - Phoenix
DELTA / DELTA CONNECTION Minneapolis - Salt Lake City - Seattle
FRONTIER Denver
JETBLUE New York JFK
SUN COUNTRY Minneapolis
UNITED - UNITED EXPRESS Chicago - Denver - Houston - Los Angeles - Newark - San Francisco
WESTJET Calgary - Edmonton- Toronto - Vancouver - Winnipeg
We Make Flying Easy......Come fly the Silver Bird........Something Special in the Air......
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:51 am

I just think it's too seasonal and might dilute what they have at ONT. That's not based on anything other than personal opinion, and I enjoy Palm Springs personally so am not casting shade on PSP as an idea.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:53 am

BMWdrvr75 wrote:
With the Coachella Valley growing and helping to improve the economy in Riverside County. I cannot understand WN's logic on not serving PSP and instead marketing ONT as a PSP gateway. Below is an excerpt from a letter written to a WN customer and Palm Springs local asking the mayor and city council for their help in getting WN to PSP.. Mayor Robert Moon wrote...
"Although we would love to add SW Airlines these efforts to date have been ineffective. However we do have a number of other airlines. A table of these airlines and their nonstop destinations is below. We just recently added daily nonstop flights to Newark, which is not yet shown on this table."

AIRLINES NONSTOP DESTINATIONS
AIR CANADA Toronto - Vancouver
ALASKA -(VIRGIN AMERICA) New York JFK - Portland - San Francisco - Seattle
ALLEGIANT Bellingham
AMERICAN Chicago - Dallas - Phoenix
DELTA / DELTA CONNECTION Minneapolis - Salt Lake City - Seattle
FRONTIER Denver
JETBLUE New York JFK
SUN COUNTRY Minneapolis
UNITED - UNITED EXPRESS Chicago - Denver - Houston - Los Angeles - Newark - San Francisco
WESTJET Calgary - Edmonton- Toronto - Vancouver - Winnipeg


Well good for this Mayor Moon, he’s got my vote. A very technical response.

What do you think a city/airport’s role is in obtaining air service?

Do you think that the city/airport hasn’t “marketed” itself enough to Southwest? What marketing would you suggest the city/airport do?
 
User avatar
September11
Posts: 3641
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:49 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:53 am

I believe landing fee as well as enplaning/deplaning per passenger fee in PSP is rather expensive.
Airliners.net of the Future
 
User avatar
BMWdrvr75
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:23 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:02 am

additional response from Mayor Moon after a letter was send to Southwest Airlines...."Awesome! Our airport is ranked as one of the Top Ten Most Pleasant airports in the US. We get very few complaints, however one complaint I get constantly is the lack of SW airlines. It is a real hassle to have to go to Ontario to catch a SW flight, particularly on a Friday afternoon when the West bound traffic out of the Coachella Valley is crawling along I-10. Also, our State Senator and our two State Legislators from this area complain all the time that they have to drive back and forth from Ontario to fly to Sacramento."

Having SW Airlines would be a tremendous boost to the many residents in the nine cities of the Coachella Valley.

Rob Moon
We Make Flying Easy......Come fly the Silver Bird........Something Special in the Air......
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:03 am

SMF-PSP might make a nice regional market. Even 2x M-F and 1x on SaSu on an E175 or CR9. I'll throw in SMF-SBA and PSP-OAK just because. Hello, Alaska?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
flyfresno
Posts: 959
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:18 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:07 am

BMWdrvr75 wrote:
With the Coachella Valley growing and helping to improve the economy in Riverside County. I cannot understand WN's logic on not serving PSP and instead marketing ONT as a PSP gateway. Below is an excerpt from a letter written to a WN customer and Palm Springs local asking the mayor and city council for their help in getting WN to PSP.. Mayor Robert Moon wrote...
"Although we would love to add SW Airlines these efforts to date have been ineffective. However we do have a number of other airlines. A table of these airlines and their nonstop destinations is below. We just recently added daily nonstop flights to Newark, which is not yet shown on this table."

AIRLINES NONSTOP DESTINATIONS
AIR CANADA Toronto - Vancouver
ALASKA -(VIRGIN AMERICA) New York JFK - Portland - San Francisco - Seattle
ALLEGIANT Bellingham
AMERICAN Chicago - Dallas - Phoenix
DELTA / DELTA CONNECTION Minneapolis - Salt Lake City - Seattle
FRONTIER Denver
JETBLUE New York JFK
SUN COUNTRY Minneapolis
UNITED - UNITED EXPRESS Chicago - Denver - Houston - Los Angeles - Newark - San Francisco
WESTJET Calgary - Edmonton- Toronto - Vancouver - Winnipeg


That’s a great list, but how many of them only operate 6 months of the year or less? I would guess that SW would have to pull way, way back in the summer, possibly even eliminating service during those months. Are there any other places SW does that sort of thing?
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:09 am

September11 wrote:
I believe landing fee as well as enplaning/deplaning per passenger fee in PSP is rather expensive.


You believe wrong.
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:10 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
SMF-PSP might make a nice regional market. Even 2x M-F and 1x on SaSu on an E175 or CR9. I'll throw in SMF-SBA and PSP-OAK just because. Hello, Alaska?


SMF-PSP isn’t served anymore?!
 
User avatar
September11
Posts: 3641
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:49 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:17 am

Spirit does not serve PSP. If they do, Southwest may join PSP? AirTran did not serve PSP.
Airliners.net of the Future
 
User avatar
BMWdrvr75
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:23 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:18 am

jetero wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
SMF-PSP might make a nice regional market. Even 2x M-F and 1x on SaSu on an E175 or CR9. I'll throw in SMF-SBA and PSP-OAK just because. Hello, Alaska?


SMF-PSP isn’t served anymore?!


No.....and LAX is down to one or two flights day even in season...... However, with the rapid growth of the valley airlines are not cutting as much as in the past. Alaska and West Jet are the biggest carriers there...In season Air Canada operates a 767 three days a week..
We Make Flying Easy......Come fly the Silver Bird........Something Special in the Air......
 
User avatar
September11
Posts: 3641
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:49 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:27 am

jetero wrote:
September11 wrote:
I believe landing fee as well as enplaning/deplaning per passenger fee in PSP is rather expensive.


You believe wrong.


Or little higher than other airports of same size?
Airliners.net of the Future
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:32 am

September11 wrote:
jetero wrote:
September11 wrote:
I believe landing fee as well as enplaning/deplaning per passenger fee in PSP is rather expensive.


You believe wrong.


Or little higher than other airports of same size?


More or less (we’re talking +/- $3 per passenger here). But that’s not the determining factor ... PSP does just fine revenue wise for 6-8 months per year, more than enough to offset that.
 
Busyboy2
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 1:57 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:38 am

There's a lot more that goes into Network planning then most of you probably realize.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:45 am

jetero wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
SMF-PSP might make a nice regional market. Even 2x M-F and 1x on SaSu on an E175 or CR9. I'll throw in SMF-SBA and PSP-OAK just because. Hello, Alaska?


SMF-PSP isn’t served anymore?!


QX flew it awhile back along with SJC-PSP and dropped it.
 
platinumfoota
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:39 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:48 am

Could there possibly be a market for PSP-LAS? And wow didn't know United served PSP from most hubs
Never forget United 93
 
ericm2031
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:54 am

Not sure WN is refusing to "look" at PSP. If they really wanted to go full court press in CA against AS, they'd add FAT, PSP, SBA...all of which are on record to have discussions with regularly...as is almost every other US airport.

WN could always build up PSP during the winter and cutback ONT in the meantime and then switch the flights back to ONT when the season goes down.

But I know Sonny Bono terminal already has the current airlines tripping over each other for a gate during peak season. UA and AC both have planned expansions for this season too. The airport is currently working on a project to open up the ticketing area as it is currently way undersized for what it is handling.

One thing that I've always been a little confused at is how small G4 is. Being a huge leisure airline and being able to adjust to seasons very well, it seems like they'd be able to serve more than just BLI. Is it the PSP clientele that doesn't fit the G4 model?
 
ericm2031
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:57 am

platinumfoota wrote:
Could there possibly be a market for PSP-LAS? And wow didn't know United served PSP from most hubs


OO used to fly prorate flights with the EM2 but they were discontinued when those were retired.
 
User avatar
September11
Posts: 3641
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:49 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:59 am

I boarded a Southwest flight last week and picked up their inflight magazine. As usual, somewhere near the end of magazine portrays a map of cities they currently serve. "Get to PSP via ONT" is indicated on the map. Still, for years now. Maybe 10 years.

I didn't forget TWA used to fly STL-PSP-ONT then ONT-PSP-STL... Southwest could practice that if they are seriously considering PSP.
Last edited by September11 on Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Airliners.net of the Future
 
LAXLHR
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:07 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:07 am

Busyboy2 wrote:
There's a lot more that goes into Network planning then most of you probably realize.



Thank you! Exactly!!
BA IB ET JM EA GK PA VS AA SN HP CO W7 WN NW DL UA AC US LH LX OS JL QF QR WY MH CX U2 EK 9W UK TP VY VN LO OK OZ UL SQ LA

707 727 L10 732-NG 741 742 743 744 752 753 762 763 772 773 787 DC8 DC9 DC10 M80 M11 100 AB3 310 318 319 320 321 330s 340s 350 380
 
User avatar
September11
Posts: 3641
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:49 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:12 am

platinumfoota wrote:
Could there possibly be a market for PSP-LAS? And wow didn't know United served PSP from most hubs


I think HP flew PSP-LAS. America West Express.... I'm out
Last edited by September11 on Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Airliners.net of the Future
 
Beardown91737
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:14 am

I sat next to someone Palm Springs bound on a WN flight to ONT on a Friday afternoon with a 6:30pm arrival. She had no idea the distance she still had remaining.

The SMF market may not be all that big from PSP since it is not the county seat. With all the destinations PSP has, I don't know if adding WN is a good idea. If WN drains enough DEN traffic to run UA off the route, the region could lose travelers who have a harder time getting there.
135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 8588
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:26 am

The major jet-distance markets to Palm Springs (not PSP, Palm Springs) are gonna be San Francisco and Seattle, with lesser traffic from Houston, Dallas and NYC. Some used to get to Palm Springs by other than flying to PSP, but I think that nonstop air has become the primary way to go. Given that Houston and Dallas (and Chicago) are all hubs, they can muster enough traffic to serve PSP.

Alaska used to have the market from SFO basically-cornered -- and I think had their own RNAV approach for times of day when it's tricky -- but as you can see other carriers now also serve it. Same thing with Seattle. It's pretty-amazing that PSP gets served by all the major carriers from more than one of their hubs. I don't enjoy taking the puddle jumper to SLC if I wanna take DL, although I have done it. When DL served ONT from JFK, I used to just bite the bullet and drive there despite the fact that I love, love, love little PSP. There's a puddle-jumper to LAX from PSP, but frankly if I'm gonna fly into LAX, I'm not going to pay for and wait for a connection when I can just jump in the car and, in the middle of the night, drive at excessive speeds to PSP and get to the hotel faster. In short, there is quite a bit of convenient air service to PSP in the season, and in the off-season, which I also like, there is still adequate-ish service, albeit very expensive service that makes one want just to fly to LAX and drive. And, like I say, plenty of flights from the primary origins like SFO and SEA.

Frankly, I am delighted that JetBlue's experiment with nonstop JFK service worked, and that United and Alaska now also serve PSP nonstop from JFK/EWR.

Of course, with the price of condos and such there now, there has been a sea change in the last 20 years to where more people live full-time in their units, and businesses that used to close during the hottest months now can generate enough customer volume to stay open year-round.

Southwest might be able to peel away some of the SFO and SEA traffic, and maybe generate some Dallas traffic, but I don't see what they can really add, and it certainly isn't going to be what the Mayor wants, which is frequent WN service to regular business destinations. Just not gonna happen.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4761
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:27 am

Beardown91737 wrote:
I sat next to someone Palm Springs bound on a WN flight to ONT on a Friday afternoon with a 6:30pm arrival. She had no idea the distance she still had remaining.

The SMF market may not be all that big from PSP since it is not the county seat. With all the destinations PSP has, I don't know if adding WN is a good idea. If WN drains enough DEN traffic to run UA off the route, the region could lose travelers who have a harder time getting there.

Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!
 
Antarius
Posts: 2042
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:42 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Beardown91737 wrote:
I sat next to someone Palm Springs bound on a WN flight to ONT on a Friday afternoon with a 6:30pm arrival. She had no idea the distance she still had remaining.

The SMF market may not be all that big from PSP since it is not the county seat. With all the destinations PSP has, I don't know if adding WN is a good idea. If WN drains enough DEN traffic to run UA off the route, the region could lose travelers who have a harder time getting there.

Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!


Take off the fanboy hat and look at financial results of the last few decades and try again.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1985
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:10 am

Considering their website is closed to almost all non-American IP's I'm not all that surprised tbh.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
77H
Posts: 1561
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:31 am

I don’t mean for this to come off like I’m bashing WN but what is so special about getting WN service specifically? I know they offer the free checked bag thing which is a plus but what else? I’ve never flown WN but every time I’ve checked their ticket prices vs other carriers they’ve been as or more expensive than the other large network carriers on the routes I’ve researched.

Looking at the list of airlines and destinations serving PSP I would say it is very well served. What can WN offer that the carriers already serving PSP can’t ? Genuinely curious.

77H
 
77H
Posts: 1561
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:45 am

Antarius wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Beardown91737 wrote:
I sat next to someone Palm Springs bound on a WN flight to ONT on a Friday afternoon with a 6:30pm arrival. She had no idea the distance she still had remaining.

The SMF market may not be all that big from PSP since it is not the county seat. With all the destinations PSP has, I don't know if adding WN is a good idea. If WN drains enough DEN traffic to run UA off the route, the region could lose travelers who have a harder time getting there.

Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!


Take off the fanboy hat and look at financial results of the last few decades and try again.


Can you cite any routes WN has run UA off of out of their hub markets? By that I mean, WN entered and UA left the market completely there after, not WN entered and UA reduced frequency or gauge.

If this hasn’t happened how can you label it being a fanboy?

77H
 
jplatts
Posts: 3365
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:32 am

77H wrote:
I don’t mean for this to come off like I’m bashing WN but what is so special about getting WN service specifically? I know they offer the free checked bag thing which is a plus but what else? I’ve never flown WN but every time I’ve checked their ticket prices vs other carriers they’ve been as or more expensive than the other large network carriers on the routes I’ve researched.

Looking at the list of airlines and destinations serving PSP I would say it is very well served. What can WN offer that the carriers already serving PSP can’t ? Genuinely curious.

77H


WN has a loyal customer base in many non-legacy carrier hub markets in the contiguous U.S. such as ABQ, AUS, CMH, IND, MCI, LAS, SDF, MKE, BNA, MSY, SMF, STL, SAT, SAN, and TPA. WN also allows passengers to cancel flights and to apply the funds from cancelled flights towards future travel within 1 year of the original ticket purchase without having to pay cancellation or change fees. WN also doesn't charge change fees for passengers to change flights, although WN will charge for difference in fare if a higher fare is charged for the changed itinerary.

One thing that WN could offer that the carriers already serving PSP are unwilling to offer is SMF-PSP nonstop service. Another thing that WN can offer that the carriers already serving PSP can't offer is one-stop direct flights with no change of planes from some of the WN destinations that do not currently have nonstop service to PSP.
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 609
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:23 pm

77H wrote:
Antarius wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!


Take off the fanboy hat and look at financial results of the last few decades and try again.


Can you cite any routes WN has run UA off of out of their hub markets? By that I mean, WN entered and UA left the market completely there after, not WN entered and UA reduced frequency or gauge.

If this hasn’t happened how can you label it being a fanboy?

77H


DEN-OAK
 
evank516
Posts: 2077
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:36 pm

ucdtim17 wrote:
77H wrote:
Antarius wrote:

Take off the fanboy hat and look at financial results of the last few decades and try again.


Can you cite any routes WN has run UA off of out of their hub markets? By that I mean, WN entered and UA left the market completely there after, not WN entered and UA reduced frequency or gauge.

If this hasn’t happened how can you label it being a fanboy?

77H


DEN-OAK


Everything out of MDW (please do not ever force me to say nice things about WN again. It drains me physically, mentally, and emotionally).
 
Western727
Posts: 1745
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:25 pm

September11 wrote:
jetero wrote:
September11 wrote:
I believe landing fee as well as enplaning/deplaning per passenger fee in PSP is rather expensive.


You believe wrong.


Or little higher than other airports of same size?


Well, if the cheapskate airlines Allegiant and Frontier both serve PSP, then...I'm thinking it must not be expensive.
Jack @ AUS
 
Judge1310
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:49 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
Beardown91737 wrote:
I sat next to someone Palm Springs bound on a WN flight to ONT on a Friday afternoon with a 6:30pm arrival. She had no idea the distance she still had remaining.

The SMF market may not be all that big from PSP since it is not the county seat. With all the destinations PSP has, I don't know if adding WN is a good idea. If WN drains enough DEN traffic to run UA off the route, the region could lose travelers who have a harder time getting there.

Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!


Okay, the above poster may have been a bit exuberant in their declaration, however by and large it's true -- WN will not "run" UA off any route in Denver. The connection opportunities for the many communities in the Rockies and western Plains are robust enough to support UA, notwithstanding local O&D. A poster mentioned DEN-OAK -- do you know how expensive it is to operate a relatively 'niche' station? Gone (mostly) are the days where air carriers flew routes "just because" or even to maintain a token presence (domestically speaking); it's far wiser and more efficient to consolidate when possible and allow some redundancies where economically and operationally feasible (see the case of SJC).
 
User avatar
usxguy
Posts: 1829
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:28 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:02 pm

Busyboy2 wrote:
There's a lot more that goes into Network planning then most of you probably realize.


there is no room at PSP for another airline. An airline I worked at for 11 years even looked at flying into PSP but they couldn't find reasonable space for them in the terminal, and the other airlines weren't able to ground handle them. We even proposed using a curbside check-in type counter.

(fyi, I was the one doing the negotations. PSP is NOT an expensive airport compared to others...)
xx
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2562
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:29 pm

September11 wrote:
I boarded a Southwest flight last week and picked up their inflight magazine. As usual, somewhere near the end of magazine portrays a map of cities they currently serve. "Get to PSP via ONT" is indicated on the map. Still, for years now. Maybe 10 years.

I didn't forget TWA used to fly STL-PSP-ONT then ONT-PSP-STL... Southwest could practice that if they are seriously considering PSP.


Airlines tend to not do tag on flights like that now. No airline in its right mind would fly ONT-PSP. It takes longer to go through security, board, and fly than to just drive the distance. Getting more passengers going through ONT drives down costs. People wanting to pay premium fares to PSP are already doing so.
 
FATFlyer
Posts: 4982
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 4:12 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:30 pm

flyfresno wrote:
That’s a great list, but how many of them only operate 6 months of the year or less? I would guess that SW would have to pull way, way back in the summer, possibly even eliminating service during those months. Are there any other places SW does that sort of thing?


Palm Springs sees a very extreme swing in O&D between the high and low months. PSP's variation in passenger numbers is even more extreme than what we see in Fresno at FAT. The low months at PSP are even lower O&D than FAT's low period.

PSP O&D By Month in 2017
Jan 2017 - 220,840
Feb 2017 - 254,157
Mar 2017 - 314,870
Apr 2017 - 245,020
May 2017 - 145,170
Jun 2017 - 87,978
Jul 2017 - 74,536
Aug 2017 - 76,752
Sep 2017 - 94,326
Oct 2017 - 156,570
Nov 2017 - 216,546
Dec 2017 - 213,307
Source:
http://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showdocument?id=57001
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:06 pm

Take a minute to consider what airports are the busiest in California. This ranking was determined by 2016 enplanements (commercial passenger boardings) per FAA records released October 2017.

1) Los Angeles (LAX) 39,636,042
2) San Francisco (SFO) 25,707,101
3) San Diego (SAN) 10,340,164
4) Oakland (OAK) 5,934,639
5) San Jose (SJC) 5,321,603
6) Orange County (SNA) 5,217,242
7) Sacramento (SMF) 4,969,366
8) Ontario (ONT) 2,104,625
9) Burbank (BUR) 2,077,892
10) Long Beach (LGB) 1,386,357
11) Palm Springs (PSP) 995,801
12) Fresno (FAT) 761,298
13) Santa Barbara (SBA) 329,751
14) Monterey (MRY) 192,136
15) Santa Rosa (STS) 167,151

As far as WN is concerned, the top 9 Californian airports have been served for years. LGB had been the busiest Californian airport missing from the WN route map - until 2016, when WN started flying there too. That leaves PSP as the busiest, or shall we say most popular, airport in California that WN does not (yet) serve.

Given the strategic importance of California to WN, it is simply wrong to state that WN "refuses" to serve PSP. That may have been the case in the past, when any and every WN station was expected to support a minimum of 7-8 daily flights (year round), but the airline has shown a much greater willingness to serve markets at much lower frequency in recent years. If WN can manage ECP, a highly seasonal leisure market with a tiny local population and virtually no business demand, I'm sure they can figure out a way to make PSP work. Perhaps something like 2x daily OAK-PSP and 1x daily LAS-PSP year round, complemented by seasonal nonstop services like BWI/DAL/DEN/MDW-PSP during the much more popular winter and spring months. Events like Coachella, Stagecoach and White Party have national draw (and are becoming ever more popular) while Palm Springs itself is rapidly gentrifying. That said, the Coachella Valley remains one of the most affordable places in all of California to buy property or rent a hotel room.

As the Palm Springs area continues to move upmarket, gain interest across the country, and become more of a year round destination, PSP's airline service will continue to increase. WN may not be ready to serve PSP just yet, but once Hawaii comes online, I'm sure it will be right up there with BZN and SAV as a highly popular destination that WN can simply no longer ignore...
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:21 pm

One problem listed up-thread was that, particularly in the peak months, WN would struggle to find adequate gate space. As nice as it sounds to just throw on service from a half dozen cities during peak, they have to have a place to put the planes. I'm not familiar with PSP so don't know how accurate that challenge may be, but I'd think PSP is just a unique situation. Maybe they'll figure out how to make it work?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
September11
Posts: 3641
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:49 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:37 pm

PSP has 8 "mainline" gates and 8 "regional" gates

2 terminals, 16 gates
Airliners.net of the Future
 
TUSDawg23
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:43 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:42 pm

I don't think PSP fits well with WN's strategy. WN essentially picks places that have year round demand. They do offer seasonal services between markets but there needs to be at least one market served from the originating city that has sufficient year round demand for them to make it worth while to open a station there.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:49 pm

September11 wrote:
PSP has 8 "mainline" gates and 8 "regional" gates

2 terminals, 16 gates


Good information. Do we know which carriers use which gates, or are they CUTE?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1539
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:09 am

Judge1310 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Beardown91737 wrote:
I sat next to someone Palm Springs bound on a WN flight to ONT on a Friday afternoon with a 6:30pm arrival. She had no idea the distance she still had remaining.

The SMF market may not be all that big from PSP since it is not the county seat. With all the destinations PSP has, I don't know if adding WN is a good idea. If WN drains enough DEN traffic to run UA off the route, the region could lose travelers who have a harder time getting there.

Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!


Okay, the above poster may have been a bit exuberant in their declaration, however by and large it's true -- WN will not "run" UA off any route in Denver. The connection opportunities for the many communities in the Rockies and western Plains are robust enough to support UA, notwithstanding local O&D. A poster mentioned DEN-OAK -- do you know how expensive it is to operate a relatively 'niche' station? Gone (mostly) are the days where air carriers flew routes "just because" or even to maintain a token presence (domestically speaking); it's far wiser and more efficient to consolidate when possible and allow some redundancies where economically and operationally feasible (see the case of SJC).


The last line of your post has me curious. Where are you going with that thought?
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:41 am

The thread title is misleading and most likely false. There is no indication that WN has "refused" to look at PSP. In fact I suspect the opposite is true, they are likely always looking at potential cities and routes to be added. Just because they've decided not to serve PSP doesn't mean they haven't looked at it. Most likely they have decided their is not enough return on investment to add service to PSP, and they are investing in growth elsewhere. As far as this being a smart decision, I will side with WN's management over an anonymous internet poster. No US airline even comes close to matching their 40 years of successful growth.
 
cschleic
Posts: 1782
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:56 am

PSP just doesn't seem like a WN city given the wide seasonality, noted by the pax counts above, at least for now.

For ECP, didn't they get support from the city or local area to start there?
 
Judge1310
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:00 am

AirFiero wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!


Okay, the above poster may have been a bit exuberant in their declaration, however by and large it's true -- WN will not "run" UA off any route in Denver. The connection opportunities for the many communities in the Rockies and western Plains are robust enough to support UA, notwithstanding local O&D. A poster mentioned DEN-OAK -- do you know how expensive it is to operate a relatively 'niche' station? Gone (mostly) are the days where air carriers flew routes "just because" or even to maintain a token presence (domestically speaking); it's far wiser and more efficient to consolidate when possible and allow some redundancies where economically and operationally feasible (see the case of SJC).


The last line of your post has me curious. Where are you going with that thought?


Thank you for a proper way to continue a discussion. ;)

It seems that when some folks (in the cases of WN and UA) enter the realm of market share, many see geographical proximity as the "end all, be all". I mentioned SJC because Silicon Valley can hold its own on flights by UA elsewhere (with respect to SFO). OAK, on the other hand *could* hold its own on some UA flights (EWR, ORD, IAH, IAD) but UA most likely knows that the numbers for such flights just don't work overall. It may seem incredulous for some on this forum, but SF East Bay folks have little problem taking a car ride/share to a BART station and paying the $ to get to SFO if it means getting from SFO to XYZ (random city) non-stop as it sure as heck beats taking the Bay Bridge during rush hour. That's all I was saying. :)
 
User avatar
usxguy
Posts: 1829
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:28 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:32 am

Its not gate space, its ticket counter/lobby size. There are no common use counters
xx
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 7343
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:25 pm

With 'up to' 37 flights a day at ONT 71 miles away by toll-free interstate highway I don't think WN needs to rationalize its choice for the OP or mayor. What airports would they serve from PSP? Why? From what big WN cities could they plausibly fly?
 
User avatar
usdcaguy
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:41 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:13 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
With 'up to' 37 flights a day at ONT 71 miles away by toll-free interstate highway I don't think WN needs to rationalize its choice for the OP or mayor. What airports would they serve from PSP? Why? From what big WN cities could they plausibly fly?


A few ideas: DAL, DEN, PHX, HOU, PDX or AUS

They have a lot of cities that would be good connecting points for PSP. The question is whether they'd be able to fill a 737 at the revenue level that would warrant not using another airport.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1539
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:22 pm

Judge1310 wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:

Okay, the above poster may have been a bit exuberant in their declaration, however by and large it's true -- WN will not "run" UA off any route in Denver. The connection opportunities for the many communities in the Rockies and western Plains are robust enough to support UA, notwithstanding local O&D. A poster mentioned DEN-OAK -- do you know how expensive it is to operate a relatively 'niche' station? Gone (mostly) are the days where air carriers flew routes "just because" or even to maintain a token presence (domestically speaking); it's far wiser and more efficient to consolidate when possible and allow some redundancies where economically and operationally feasible (see the case of SJC).


The last line of your post has me curious. Where are you going with that thought?


Thank you for a proper way to continue a discussion. ;)

It seems that when some folks (in the cases of WN and UA) enter the realm of market share, many see geographical proximity as the "end all, be all". I mentioned SJC because Silicon Valley can hold its own on flights by UA elsewhere (with respect to SFO). OAK, on the other hand *could* hold its own on some UA flights (EWR, ORD, IAH, IAD) but UA most likely knows that the numbers for such flights just don't work overall. It may seem incredulous for some on this forum, but SF East Bay folks have little problem taking a car ride/share to a BART station and paying the $ to get to SFO if it means getting from SFO to XYZ (random city) non-stop as it sure as heck beats taking the Bay Bridge during rush hour. That's all I was saying. :)


Understood, thanks.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19328
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: WN's refusal to look at PSP

Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:43 pm

The premise of this thread integues me. Is WN going to make more profit serving PSP or competing for the same customers at ONT, SAN, or LAX.

As noted before there has to be a ROI. Laying people off is expensive, so only hire if the business plan justifies.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos