Another sign Cuba routes not cracked up to be - Delta today requested DOT authority for flexibility to utilize 76-seat CRJs operated by Endeavor Air on its Atlanta and Miami to Havana routes in order to "respond more nimbly to fluctuations in the evolving U.S.-Havana market."

Miami bit surprise as Delta on recently won additional frequency from the F9 and NK reallocation.


OST-2016-0021

Another one bites the dust.....
I though a 757 ATL-HAV was always ambitious when there's bare minimum outbound demand and you cant visit Cuba just for the sake of it.
I hope something changes for the sake of the poor people down there.

Not sure when it’s been a 757. Every time I’ve worked it it’s been an A319.

One thing to note, with RJ ops while cheaper overall bring higher seat cost.

I wonder how folks like UA, AA and now DL will make out using higher seat cost RJs if market pricing remains so competitive(low).

I though MIA-Havana was a gold mine?

tphuang wrote:

I'm not really sure what DL is still doing in Cuba. I can't imagine ATL doing that well given that it would be all connection traffic on some very low fares. And out of MIA, they are going to get wiped out by AA. Actually other than AA, who really still should be in Cuba? I guess B6 do okay out of FLL to secondary Cuban cities but their HAV numbers are horrendous. Going to be interesting to see which of WN and B6 going to last longer out of FLL.

Swift to San Juan

I'm not really sure what DL is still doing in Cuba. I can't imagine ATL doing that well given that it would be all connection traffic on some very low fares. And out of MIA, they are going to get wiped out by AA. Actually other than AA, who really still should be in Cuba? I guess B6 do okay out of FLL to secondary Cuban cities but their HAV numbers are horrendous. Going to be interesting to see which of WN and B6 going to last longer out of FLL.

GoSteelers wrote:

Not sure when it’s been a 757. Every time I’ve worked it it’s been an A319.

Sorry, initial DL bid was for an ATL/JFK-HAV on the B757-200 and MCO/MIA-HAV on B737-800s. Quite a difference from what they've found to work!

tphuang wrote:

I'm not really sure what DL is still doing in Cuba. I can't imagine ATL doing that well given that it would be all connection traffic on some very low fares. And out of MIA, they are going to get wiped out by AA. Actually other than AA, who really still should be in Cuba? I guess B6 do okay out of FLL to secondary Cuban cities but their HAV numbers are horrendous. Going to be interesting to see which of WN and B6 going to last longer out of FLL.

Again, wondering about connecting traffic through ATL to HAV, outside of people with relatives in Cuba, what demand is there from the rest of the U.S.?

LAXintl wrote:

evolving U.S.-Havana market

Like the always kind terms used for bad news.

Is there any public O/D data yet?

LAXintl wrote:

One thing to note, with RJ ops while cheaper overall bring higher seat cost.

I wonder how folks like UA, AA and now DL will make out using higher seat cost RJs if market pricing remains so competitive(low).

If the actual demand is very finite (and tiny), you may as well get the trip cost as low as possible if you're committed to staying in the market.

In the future will airlines downgauge it to the like of Beech 1900?

LAXintl wrote:

Miami bit surprise as Delta on recently won additional frequency from the F9 and NK reallocation.

Perhaps increased frequency using smaller aircraft is exactly what this market needs in order to be successful and profitable?

Just use a 717 in that market.

Flyguy

DL747400 wrote:

Perhaps increased frequency using smaller aircraft is exactly what this market needs in order to be successful and profitable?

Then why tell the DOT you plan on offering service using 160-seat A320s and state the success of your existing service warrants the additional frequency???



Its bait and switch before the flight even launches. Frankly, DOT should take the slot back and rearward it to one of the other carriers that applied.

DL's MIA-LHR flopped. DL can't even manage a year round MIA-LAX service; their MIA-MCO service ends in a few months (and it won't be the first time they've cut that route). While I certainly admire DL's enthusiasm to try all kinds of p2p routes from South Florida, nothing ever seems to work beyond their hubs and major focus cities. I can't imagine MIA-HAV will last much longer. With JFK-HAV already ending and ATL-HAV clearly struggling, is it even worth it for DL to continue serving Cuba? Seems like as far as U.S. carriers are concerned only AA, B6, UA and WN have the wherewithal to stick it out...

SurfandSnow wrote:

DL's MIA-LHR flopped. DL can't even manage a year round MIA-LAX service; their MIA-MCO service ends in a few months (and it won't be the first time they've cut that route). While I certainly admire DL's enthusiasm to try all kinds of p2p routes from South Florida, nothing ever seems to work beyond their hubs and major focus cities. I can't imagine MIA-HAV will last much longer. With JFK-HAV already ending and ATL-HAV clearly struggling, is it even worth it for DL to continue serving Cuba? Seems like as far as U.S. carriers are concerned only AA, B6, UA and WN have the wherewithal to stick it out...

Clearly DL has the wherewithal by adjusting to demand. If it didn’t want to stick it out, it would walk away like Spirit and Frontier. But, let’s look at how many flights AA has dropped or reduced to regional. UA moved or is moving flights to regional. B6 moved from A320s to E190s and, finally, I believe WN has actually dropped some, too. I don’t see how DL’s actions are any different.

SurfandSnow wrote:

DL's MIA-LHR flopped. DL can't even manage a year round MIA-LAX service...

Did MIA-LHR end before the VS TATL JV?

I’m surprised DL is unable to grab some market share and make money on more P2P flying out of MIA and/or FLL.

LAXintl wrote:

Another sign Cuba routes not cracked up to be

Hard to be anything more than a failure when the regime makes it as difficult as possible to fill those seats.

DarthLobster wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Another sign Cuba routes not cracked up to be

Hard to be anything more than a failure when the regime makes it as difficult as possible to fill those seats.

U mean the American regime?

Why do they have to ask the Government what plane they can use?

I posted in the prior thread that DL couldn’t make MIA-HAV work because they have no market strength in MIA. I was attacked. Vindication.

You just can’t fly point to point routes from somebody else’s megahub and expect to make money.

Don't know about you, but I find some enjoyment in seeing all airlines have to walk back their Cuba dreams after completely blowing demand profiles when asking for authorities.

SurfandSnow wrote:

DL's MIA-LHR flopped. DL can't even manage a year round MIA-LAX service; their MIA-MCO service ends in a few months (and it won't be the first time they've cut that route). While I certainly admire DL's enthusiasm to try all kinds of p2p routes from South Florida, nothing ever seems to work beyond their hubs and major focus cities. I can't imagine MIA-HAV will last much longer. With JFK-HAV already ending and ATL-HAV clearly struggling, is it even worth it for DL to continue serving Cuba? Seems like as far as U.S. carriers are concerned only AA, B6, UA and WN have the wherewithal to stick it out...

MIA-MCO exists solely to feed MCO-GRU with junk yields and MIA-HAV has seen good load factors and goes double daily this fall. DL's MIA-LHR became a second daily Virgin Atlantic flight.

Reading too much into an airline asking for flexibility in aircraft gauge - JetBlue is able to have this flexibility, and uses it, but because it operates everything under one certificate, is not required to ask DOT.

American Airlines will sometimes use ERJ-175s from Miami to PTY, BZE and BAQ during off peak. That doesn't mean those routes are failures.

MSPNWA wrote:

Don't know about you, but I find some enjoyment in seeing all airlines have to walk back their Cuba dreams after completely blowing demand profiles when asking for authorities.

The walk back is not entirely the fault of these airlines. Our own US government has changed the rules as far as Cuba goes. When they applied for these routes Cuba was on the verge of opening up to general public travel. The political climate has changed, and it looks like it will continue for a at least a few more years. I really think all international travel for the US market could take a hit soon. But that is what the public wants.

SurfandSnow wrote:

DL's MIA-LHR flopped. DL can't even manage a year round MIA-LAX service; their MIA-MCO service ends in a few months (and it won't be the first time they've cut that route). While I certainly admire DL's enthusiasm to try all kinds of p2p routes from South Florida, nothing ever seems to work beyond their hubs and major focus cities. I can't imagine MIA-HAV will last much longer. With JFK-HAV already ending and ATL-HAV clearly struggling, is it even worth it for DL to continue serving Cuba? Seems like as far as U.S. carriers are concerned only AA, B6, UA and WN have the wherewithal to stick it out...

It's pretty stunning. Through the years DL has tried a large number of p2p routes from MIA and FLL and has always pulled back eventually. The currently running FLL-RDU seems to be a notable exception but exactly that. DL's FF base in the region is massive, but as time goes on the period when they were the dominant carrier at FLL and PBI and a strong number 2 at MIA fades further into the background undermining that FF base. But it should be noted the almost shuttle like FLL-ATL service and less frequent but still frequent MIA-ATL schedule indicates that FF base still needs to be serviced and is willing to connect to fly DL.

santi319 wrote:

DarthLobster wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Another sign Cuba routes not cracked up to be

Hard to be anything more than a failure when the regime makes it as difficult as possible to fill those seats.

U mean the American regime?

Bingo, we have a winner! End all the ridiculous sanctions and see how many of these flights would flourish.

Mark is correct in this case, this is not a huge deal. DL only has to ask because of separate certs. Airlines like jetBlue do not when operating under one. This is not as huge a deal as people are making out.

That said Cuba demand has been scaled back some due to the current Trump admin changes to travel ease. The current markets are limited and do have to mature. Very few markets have expanded since the opening. Miami has grown (duh) and United has expanded Houston IAH, basically funneling everything west of the Mississippi. Most others have shrunk a bit or pulled out.

LAXintl wrote:

One thing to note, with RJ ops while cheaper overall bring higher seat cost.

I wonder how folks like UA, AA and now DL will make out using higher seat cost RJs if market pricing remains so competitive(low).

When airlines contract with regional carriers, particularly the big three, they have a lot of leverage in pricing. The real issue, airlines tripped over themselves to fly to Cuba and it has, mostly, laid an egg. Should not have been surprising; the place is poor, little infrastructure for tourism, and we still do not have regular access.

SurfandSnow wrote:

DL's MIA-LHR flopped. DL can't even manage a year round MIA-LAX service; their MIA-MCO service ends in a few months (and it won't be the first time they've cut that route). While I certainly admire DL's enthusiasm to try all kinds of p2p routes from South Florida, nothing ever seems to work beyond their hubs and major focus cities. I can't imagine MIA-HAV will last much longer. With JFK-HAV already ending and ATL-HAV clearly struggling, is it even worth it for DL to continue serving Cuba? Seems like as far as U.S. carriers are concerned only AA, B6, UA and WN have the wherewithal to stick it out...

DL has never worked out very well in MIA for p2p. (probably due to heavy competition from AA) DL seems to do much better in MCO for p2p routes with several that they’ve been running on Saturdays for a couple years now and 3 INTL flights to AMS, GRU, and CUN. The only reason why MIA-HAV still works is because of the very high Cuban population (which many still have family in Cuba) and they have a valid reason to travel there.

Not surprised. Everyone I've talked to that went to visit has been disappointed. And it has nothing to do with American sanctions. Its just not safe there for tourists. Even the airport employees have basically a second job of stripping incoming aircraft of everything they can to resell.

Best case scenario it becomes another Dominican Republic. VFRs and a couple sequestered tourist ghettos/ports.

The new restrictions came from an embassy attack in Havana that left some of our workers permanantly damaged.

Please understand that when we toss out political rhetoric.


As for flights...told you so! Always empty

jfklganyc wrote:

The new restrictions came from an embassy attack in Havana that left some of our workers permanantly damaged.

Please understand that when we toss out political rhetoric.


As for flights...told you so! Always empty

Not to get off topic but none of this is true. The restrictions were put back in place before the sonic attacks. And DL’s MIA-HAV flight gets decent loads. While I do expect ATL-HAV to be permanently downgraded to RJ service, I’m pretty sure Miami will be staying mainline except for in low season. The restricted service to Havana actually helps DL in Miami because if it were an open market, AA could increase service and run them off the route.

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

DL's MIA-LHR flopped. DL can't even manage a year round MIA-LAX service; their MIA-MCO service ends in a few months (and it won't be the first time they've cut that route). While I certainly admire DL's enthusiasm to try all kinds of p2p routes from South Florida, nothing ever seems to work beyond their hubs and major focus cities. I can't imagine MIA-HAV will last much longer. With JFK-HAV already ending and ATL-HAV clearly struggling, is it even worth it for DL to continue serving Cuba? Seems like as far as U.S. carriers are concerned only AA, B6, UA and WN have the wherewithal to stick it out...

It's pretty stunning. Through the years DL has tried a large number of p2p routes from MIA and FLL and has always pulled back eventually. The currently running FLL-RDU seems to be a notable exception but exactly that. DL's FF base in the region is massive, but as time goes on the period when they were the dominant carrier at FLL and PBI and a strong number 2 at MIA fades further into the background undermining that FF base. But it should be noted the almost shuttle like FLL-ATL service and less frequent but still frequent MIA-ATL schedule indicates that FF base still needs to be serviced and is willing to connect to fly DL.

Are they really that strong in South Florida against AA's strong presence and all the LCC presence that it's a surprise they can't maintain the p2p routes going? I think people maybe overstating their point of sale there.

Here is Q4 data for FLL-RDU for a route supposedly between a large focus city and FLL.
CityPair Dist Carrier Board AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS LF AvgAsm PRASM
FLLRDU 680 G7 2768 208.96 207.48 309.29 98.55% 76.38% 158.48 0.2331
FLLRDU 680 WN 29718 144.54 141.08 163.07 84.30% 86.87% 122.55 0.1802
FLLRDU 680 9E 8450 158.64 155.24 205.93 93.28% 84.25% 130.78 0.1923
FLLRDU 680 B6 30894 151.83 151.72 402 99.95% 83.95% 127.37 0.1873
that is minimal RASM advantage for endeavor over B6/WN. Not great when you consider the CASM of legacy regional vs LCC mainline.

enilria wrote:

I posted in the prior thread that DL couldn’t make MIA-HAV work because they have no market strength in MIA. I was attacked. Vindication.

You just can’t fly point to point routes from somebody else’s megahub and expect to make money.

exactly, I'm continuously surprised people think DL can make a route like this work from a station so utterly dominated by AA.

They need to be out of HAV. JFK was a disaster and they are gone from there. ATL is a disaster (50 to 60% LF for Q4). MIA is better, but can't imagine the fares work. AA out of MIA is the only carrier that is probably not loosing money heavily on Cuba.

While we are at it, I'm amazed B6 continues to operate out of JFK flying completely empty A320s.

rlwynn wrote:

Why do they have to ask the Government what plane they can use?

Probably because they want to use a plane not owned and not operated by Delta. They are just outsourcing the route to another operator while retaining the marketing, selling and ticketing

MAH4546 wrote:

DL's MIA-LHR became a second daily Virgin Atlantic flight.

Which is sad the can't make it work with a gifted LHR slot with the strength of another daily JV flight.
VS tried domestic LHR-EDI and LHR-ABZ with gifted LHR slots from AA-BA and can't make it work.
DL tried LHR-BOS and LHR-MIA with gifted LHR slots from AA-BA and can't make it work even though it is part of the EU-US AF-KL-DL Shared Business
AF tried to operate LHR-LAX of behalf of DL because of better suitable aircraft and ability to sell F class and can't make it work.
This DL MIA thing also adds up

Seems the only one to make perfect and suitable swaps on routes were NW (now DL) with the KLM AMS hub. But these other carriers cannot set foot far away from their original legacy markets.

Bald1983 wrote:

When airlines contract with regional carriers, particularly the big three, they have a lot of leverage in pricing. The real issue, airlines tripped over themselves to fly to Cuba and it has, mostly, laid an egg. Should not have been surprising; the place is poor, little infrastructure for tourism, and we still do not have regular access.

The airlines were told that there would shortly be essentially no barriers to travel to Cuba -- i.e. a general market. Plans were made on that expectation. Restrictions were not lifted to the extent expected. Hence the current situation. "Poor with little infrastructure for tourism"? -- Europeans and Canadians seem to go there all the time.

wjcandee wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

When airlines contract with regional carriers, particularly the big three, they have a lot of leverage in pricing. The real issue, airlines tripped over themselves to fly to Cuba and it has, mostly, laid an egg. Should not have been surprising; the place is poor, little infrastructure for tourism, and we still do not have regular access.

The airlines were told that there would shortly be essentially no barriers to travel to Cuba -- i.e. a general market. Plans were made on that expectation. Restrictions were not lifted to the extent expected. Hence the current situation. "Poor with little infrastructure for tourism"? -- Europeans and Canadians seem to go there all the time.

Still poor and not ready for the tourism the US could provide.

Bald1983 wrote:

Still poor and not ready for the tourism the US could provide.

I'm not sure that is 100% correct. The U.S. carriers completely over estimated the total number of passengers expected to fly between the U.S. and Cuba. Cuba is ready for tourism Canadians and Europeans vacation there all the time also the cruise industry from Miami has really taken off. In my opinion I think the U.S. cruise industry was the biggest beneficiary it allows Americans to visit Cuba for a few hours some even overnight in Cuba then leave. I could be wrong but I think for now many Americans just want a taste of Cuba they are not looking to spend a 5-7 day vacation in Cuba which makes a cruise all the more perfect. While U.S. airlines have been cutting or downguaging routes the cruise industry has been adding more cruises to Cuba from Miami.

c933103 wrote:

In the future will airlines downgauge it to the like of Beech 1900?

I look forward to seeing Cessna 152s on MIA-HAV.

SurfandSnow wrote:

DL's MIA-LHR flopped.

Delta never intended to keep the route. IIRC they got some LHR slots as a condition of the AA/BA joint venture but were required to fly LHR-MIA and another ex-LHR route thst escapes me right now (maybe LHR-BOS?) for a year or two to provide competition for AA/BA before they were allowed to use the slot for a flight to one of their hubs.

questions wrote:

I’m surprised DL is unable to grab some market share and make money on more P2P flying out of MIA and/or FLL.

They can probably grab the market share but they’d be competing against AA, B6, and NK with hubs in MIA/FLL. It’d be a bloodbath, like when F9 launched all those routes out of MIA last October and legacies were offering $25 one ways.

jayunited wrote:

I'm not sure that is 100% correct. The U.S. carriers completely overestimated the total number of passengers expected to fly between the U.S. and Cuba.

Realistically, the airlines should have treated Cuba like a brand new destination carved out of a tropical isle, instead, they ran with a 'We're Going Back to Cuba!' stance that only resonated with a demographic that didn't have disposable income--anyone born after 1959 looking for a vacay destination wasn't used to considering Cuba.

When I was a kid collecting timetables, I was puzzled when Grand Cayman popped up on Southern's map, likewise when Cancun/Cozumel/Merida showed up on Eastern's. Bahamas and Jamaica, I knew about. Acapulco/Guadalajara, I knew about. It took some time for those new vacation destinations to become part of the moneyed demographic's 'top of mind' (I hate that phrase). Havana should have been treated the same way. Anyone who had been familiar with the Open City Havana before 1959 is in no condition to go back--they're pushing 85--and they'd be disappointed anyhow.

So maybe Cuba is going after the edgy/millennial-with-money demo. Fair enough, but that group is a mile wide and six inches deep, not likely to come back every other year like they do to Las Vegas or Hawai'i other than O'ahu. They're more like Havana once, Iceland the year after, etc.

BN727227Ultra wrote:

jayunited wrote:

I'm not sure that is 100% correct. The U.S. carriers completely overestimated the total number of passengers expected to fly between the U.S. and Cuba.

Realistically, the airlines should have treated Cuba like a brand new destination carved out of a tropical isle, instead, they ran with a 'We're Going Back to Cuba!' stance that only resonated with a demographic that didn't have disposable income--anyone born after 1959 looking for a vacay destination wasn't used to considering Cuba.

When I was a kid collecting timetables, I was puzzled when Grand Cayman popped up on Southern's map, likewise when Cancun/Cozumel/Merida showed up on Eastern's. Bahamas and Jamaica, I knew about. Acapulco/Guadalajara, I knew about. It took some time for those new vacation destinations to become part of the moneyed demographic's 'top of mind' (I hate that phrase). Havana should have been treated the same way. Anyone who had been familiar with the Open City Havana before 1959 is in no condition to go back--they're pushing 85--and they'd be disappointed anyhow.

So maybe Cuba is going after the edgy/millennial-with-money demo. Fair enough, but that group is a mile wide and six inches deep, not likely to come back every other year like they do to Las Vegas or Hawai'i other than O'ahu. They're more like Havana once, Iceland the year after, etc.

Definitely the adventure tourism crowd, except, isn't tourism from the U.S. prohibited by America to keep money from flowing from the U.S. to the government owned businesses (i.e. Cuban government)? I assume that is the reason?

The new restrictions were announced on November 8, 2017.


Google the date of the embassy attack.


I think your timeline is incorrect.

That said whoever attacked the embassy played right into trumps hand… Gave him the perfect excuse to tighten things up

Brickell305 wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

The new restrictions came from an embassy attack in Havana that left some of our workers permanantly damaged.

Please understand that when we toss out political rhetoric.


As for flights...told you so! Always empty

Not to get off topic but none of this is true. The restrictions were put back in place before the sonic attacks. And DL’s MIA-HAV flight gets decent loads. While I do expect ATL-HAV to be permanently downgraded to RJ service, I’m pretty sure Miami will be staying mainline except for in low season. The restricted service to Havana actually helps DL in Miami because if it were an open market, AA could increase service and run them off the route.

janders wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

Perhaps increased frequency using smaller aircraft is exactly what this market needs in order to be successful and profitable?

Then why tell the DOT you plan on offering service using 160-seat A320s and state the success of your existing service warrants the additional frequency???



Its bait and switch before the flight even launches. Frankly, DOT should take the slot back and rearward it to one of the other carriers that applied.

Ha! Take it back and give it to who?!?! The whole thing is a big joke. I’m of the opinion that the limited slots and dillusional thinking by the DOT has created the hysteria that led to the slot grabbing and over abundance of seats and service from places that don’t have a chance in heck of being able to generate the volumes necessary to sustain service. We all know that airlines don’t want to over-commit resources to developing routes. In these cases, they had to because the process makes them afraid of being shut out. Let’s see, sounds like HND! In much the same way, the DOT aims for fairness and access from cities across the US, but when the dust settles, only a few gateway cities have the traffic to sustain service. There has to be a better way!

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

DUPLICATE- MODS PLEASE DELETE! THX!

That's not how it works. Use the little triangle above your post to alert the mods for deletion.

AAtakeMeAway wrote:

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

DUPLICATE- MODS PLEASE DELETE! THX!

That's not how it works. Use the little triangle above your post to alert the mods for deletion.

Thank you!

BN727227Ultra wrote:

So maybe Cuba is going after the edgy/millennial-with-money demo. Fair enough, but that group is a mile wide and six inches deep, not likely to come back every other year like they do to Las Vegas or Hawai'i other than O'ahu. They're more like Havana once, Iceland the year after, etc.

I agree with this, though I wouldn't say "edgy" as much as wanting to vacation without the hysteria created by the "popular" places. I loved Vietnam, yet really wasn't sold on Thailand. While Vietnam had enough of a tourist structure that I could get around as a foreigner, there were a number of things in Thailand that felt like I was at Disney world. Not to mention, I didn't feel as much of a "party" vibe in Vietnam as I did in Thailand. Not saying people didn't drink, but people weren't there just to get wasted and do some kayaking or whatever.

I feel like the people who want to visit Havana (as Americans) are more of the people who are more into the adventure and learning about the history/culture rather than sitting on the beach for a week with a drink in one hand.

MAH4546 wrote:

Reading too much into an airline asking for flexibility in aircraft gauge - JetBlue is able to have this flexibility, and uses it, but because it operates everything under one certificate, is not required to ask DOT.

Interesting point. So essentially any carrier that wants to downguage from mainline to a regional needs to get DOT approval, but a change from one mainline equipment to another would not require such approval?

tphuang wrote:

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

Are they really that strong in South Florida against AA's strong presence and all the LCC presence that it's a surprise they can't maintain the p2p routes going? I think people maybe overstating their point of sale there.

Here is Q4 data for FLL-RDU for a route supposedly between a large focus city and FLL.
CityPair Dist Carrier Board AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS LF AvgAsm PRASM
FLLRDU 680 G7 2768 208.96 207.48 309.29 98.55% 76.38% 158.48 0.2331
FLLRDU 680 WN 29718 144.54 141.08 163.07 84.30% 86.87% 122.55 0.1802
FLLRDU 680 9E 8450 158.64 155.24 205.93 93.28% 84.25% 130.78 0.1923
FLLRDU 680 B6 30894 151.83 151.72 402 99.95% 83.95% 127.37 0.1873
that is minimal RASM advantage for endeavor over B6/WN. Not great when you consider the CASM of legacy regional vs LCC mainline.

While we are at it, I'm amazed B6 continues to operate out of JFK flying completely empty A320s.

Thanks for providing these data. RDU is actually a quasi focus city for DL, so if anything I would have expected DL to further outperform WN/B6 from a RASM standpoint.

Slightly off topic - but is that % NS for B6 correct? It's very hard for me to believe that B6 only flies 1 connecting passenger every 2 flights from FLL-RDU, given the plethora of connecting opportunities from LatAm/Caribbean and maybe even some of the TCON flights. Or is this datapoint only looking at FLL-RDU-XXX and not XXX-FLL-RDU itineraries?

As for B6 on JFK-HAV, I hear you, although it remains to be seen how much this has improved after DL pulled out (first weekdays and now completely). There is something to be said about B6's ability to make certain markets work which traditionally have been more difficult for the legacies, particularly from NYC to the Islands. Granted, Cuba is unique, but I think B6 is invested for the long-term, barring further deterioration of US-Cuba relations. I would also expect such commitment to pay off should the White House flip in 2020 with a more dovish president who rolls back some of the restrictions which were re-introduced by the current administration.

jetbluefan1 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

Are they really that strong in South Florida against AA's strong presence and all the LCC presence that it's a surprise they can't maintain the p2p routes going? I think people maybe overstating their point of sale there.

Here is Q4 data for FLL-RDU for a route supposedly between a large focus city and FLL.
CityPair Dist Carrier Board AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS LF AvgAsm PRASM
FLLRDU 680 G7 2768 208.96 207.48 309.29 98.55% 76.38% 158.48 0.2331
FLLRDU 680 WN 29718 144.54 141.08 163.07 84.30% 86.87% 122.55 0.1802
FLLRDU 680 9E 8450 158.64 155.24 205.93 93.28% 84.25% 130.78 0.1923
FLLRDU 680 B6 30894 151.83 151.72 402 99.95% 83.95% 127.37 0.1873
that is minimal RASM advantage for endeavor over B6/WN. Not great when you consider the CASM of legacy regional vs LCC mainline.

While we are at it, I'm amazed B6 continues to operate out of JFK flying completely empty A320s.

Thanks for providing these data. RDU is actually a quasi focus city for DL, so if anything I would have expected DL to further outperform WN/B6 from a RASM standpoint.

Slightly off topic - but is that % NS for B6 correct? It's very hard for me to believe that B6 only flies 1 connecting passenger every 2 flights from FLL-RDU, given the plethora of connecting opportunities from LatAm/Caribbean and maybe even some of the TCON flights. Or is this datapoint only looking at FLL-RDU-XXX and not XXX-FLL-RDU itineraries?

As for B6 on JFK-HAV, I hear you, although it remains to be seen how much this has improved after DL pulled out (first weekdays and now completely). There is something to be said about B6's ability to make certain markets work which traditionally have been more difficult for the legacies, particularly from NYC to the Islands. Granted, Cuba is unique, but I think B6 is invested for the long-term, barring further deterioration of US-Cuba relations. I would also expect such commitment to pay off should the White House flip in 2020 with a more dovish president who rolls back some of the restrictions which were re-introduced by the current administration.

on JFK-HAV. they had 36% LF for Q4. Not great. I think DL was in the 40s. Maybe after DL pulls out and UA downguages, that can be sustainable.

As for the NS%, the column heading is misleading. It means 99.95% of passengers traveling on B6 itinerary from FLL to RDU are non-stop (remaining are probably the odd displaced FLL-BOS/JFK-RDU). Whereas for DL/WN, you'd probably get a bunch of FLL-ATL-RDU itinerary. Since BTS sample fare data include all fare itinerary between 2 places including connection ones, I had to find a way to separate that to get a correct assessment of average fare between. The problem is that we can't really see how much they get on the connection items like RDU-FLL-SJU for example.

enilria wrote:

I posted in the prior thread that DL couldn’t make MIA-HAV work because they have no market strength in MIA. I was attacked. Vindication.

You just can’t fly point to point routes from somebody else’s megahub and expect to make money.

I said that from the beginning, even before Trump restricted travel. AA has the feed, its the dominant carrier out of MIA and has enough market to offer several daily flights. I spent an afternoon at MIA recently and it was a strange sight to see some plane aside from AA taking off. How many flights does DL have to points other than ATL?

[quote"]

Realistically, the airlines should have treated Cuba like a brand new destination carved out of a tropical isle, instead, they ran with a 'We're Going Back to Cuba!' stance that only resonated with a demographic that didn't have disposable income--anyone born after 1959 looking for a vacay destination wasn't used to considering Cuba.

[quote]

Except that Cuba isnt "brand new". Every American has heard of Cuba. Were there no restrictions on travel to that island many would have gone, if for curiosity if for no other reason. But with restrictions on travel a trip there is too much bureaucracy so only the most committed will travel.

I suspect that much of the Millennial crowd, tired of the generic Caribbean, might well have given it a try Given that they tend to prefer vacations that offer something other than the generic.

When restrictions are removed then we will see travel to Cuba increase.

DOT approval is needed as the designated authority would be flown by another operator.

In theory, also, the DOT could always refuse the transfer and force a new reselection process, but considering all 3 of the majors have downgauged capacity its largely a mute argument.