Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
GoSteelers wrote:Not sure when it’s been a 757. Every time I’ve worked it it’s been an A319.
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.
LAXintl wrote:evolving U.S.-Havana market
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).
LAXintl wrote:Miami bit surprise as Delta on recently won additional frequency from the F9 and NK reallocation.
DL747400 wrote:
Perhaps increased frequency using smaller aircraft is exactly what this market needs in order to be successful and profitable?
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...
SurfandSnow wrote:DL's MIA-LHR flopped. DL can't even manage a year round MIA-LAX service...
LAXintl wrote:Another sign Cuba routes not cracked up to be
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.
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...
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.
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...
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?
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).
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...
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
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.
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.
rlwynn wrote:Why do they have to ask the Government what plane they can use?
MAH4546 wrote:DL's MIA-LHR became a second daily Virgin Atlantic flight.
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.
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.
Bald1983 wrote:Still poor and not ready for the tourism the US could provide.
c933103 wrote:In the future will airlines downgauge it to the like of Beech 1900?
SurfandSnow wrote:DL's MIA-LHR flopped.
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.
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.
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.
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.
MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:DUPLICATE- MODS PLEASE DELETE! THX!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.