Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
LovePrunesAnet
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:04 am

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:00 am

dfwjim1 wrote:
1). Which airport is PWN?



there was nothing in enilria's report with PWN. Closest was PWM
Googling "What airport code is PWM" yields Portland, ME
 
ahj2000
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:34 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:03 pm

CLT gets some more F9 service, including new TPA. I rarely see flights that don't have a completely full gate area as of right now, regardless of the destination.
Also, has anyone seen GDL-CLT/ABQ loaded to GDS or is it just on Volaris.com right now?
-Andrés Juánez
 
evank516
Posts: 2194
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:21 pm

jmertic wrote:
enilria wrote:
Poor CAK. Just got a new CEO I read and they lose another key route.
**DL CAK-DTW DEC 3>0[3] JAN 3>0[3] FEB 3>0[3] MAR 3>0[3] APR 3>0[3] MAY 3>0[3]


Disappointing as a frequent traveller on this route - but the downgaging of pretty much everything CAK on DL ( ATL went from all mainline in the spring to CR9s now ), combined with DL following the other carriers trend of adding/upgaging CLE and the reduction of CR2 operations made this move not all that surprising. I'd also imagine the DL redcoats there will be or have been re-assigned as well.

This route has been around since the NW days, looking at departedflights.com I'm thinking at least since the mid 1980s.


You still have mainline on the RON CAK-ATL flight. It may not be permanent either, CAK-ATL was running mostly, if not all mainline for quite a while post WN/FL. I'm guessing you'll see more mainline back later on.
 
jmertic
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 6:44 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:44 pm

evank516 wrote:
jmertic wrote:
enilria wrote:
Poor CAK. Just got a new CEO I read and they lose another key route.
**DL CAK-DTW DEC 3>0[3] JAN 3>0[3] FEB 3>0[3] MAR 3>0[3] APR 3>0[3] MAY 3>0[3]


Disappointing as a frequent traveller on this route - but the downgaging of pretty much everything CAK on DL ( ATL went from all mainline in the spring to CR9s now ), combined with DL following the other carriers trend of adding/upgaging CLE and the reduction of CR2 operations made this move not all that surprising. I'd also imagine the DL redcoats there will be or have been re-assigned as well.

This route has been around since the NW days, looking at departedflights.com I'm thinking at least since the mid 1980s.


You still have mainline on the RON CAK-ATL flight. It may not be permanent either, CAK-ATL was running mostly, if not all mainline for quite a while post WN/FL. I'm guessing you'll see more mainline back later on.


It looks like as of 12/1 it goes all regional...

https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US ... 2018-12-03

I do wonder if this move is a play to reduce their gate footprint and move to the upper concourse. Right now they have 3 gates ( Gates 5,6,7 - with Gate 7 the old NW gate and only used for IRROPS ). AA is across Gates 3 and 4 for DCA, CLT, PHL, and LGA - I bet they'd like to take over the entire lower concourse if they could. There is an open gate in the upper concourse that was previously WN/FL.
 
evank516
Posts: 2194
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:00 pm

jmertic wrote:
evank516 wrote:
jmertic wrote:

Disappointing as a frequent traveller on this route - but the downgaging of pretty much everything CAK on DL ( ATL went from all mainline in the spring to CR9s now ), combined with DL following the other carriers trend of adding/upgaging CLE and the reduction of CR2 operations made this move not all that surprising. I'd also imagine the DL redcoats there will be or have been re-assigned as well.

This route has been around since the NW days, looking at departedflights.com I'm thinking at least since the mid 1980s.


You still have mainline on the RON CAK-ATL flight. It may not be permanent either, CAK-ATL was running mostly, if not all mainline for quite a while post WN/FL. I'm guessing you'll see more mainline back later on.


It looks like as of 12/1 it goes all regional...

https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US ... 2018-12-03

I do wonder if this move is a play to reduce their gate footprint and move to the upper concourse. Right now they have 3 gates ( Gates 5,6,7 - with Gate 7 the old NW gate and only used for IRROPS ). AA is across Gates 3 and 4 for DCA, CLT, PHL, and LGA - I bet they'd like to take over the entire lower concourse if they could. There is an open gate in the upper concourse that was previously WN/FL.


They might, but 12/1 is still far enough away for changes to be made. Regardless it may still come back in the spring.
 
marvinanderson1
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:39 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:18 pm

Maybe CAK director McQueen should make an earlier departure than December. Hopefully the new airport director Comacho is relaying his vision and speaking to Airlines pre his official October 1 reign. Obviously a new vision is badly needed at CAK. A region of 1.2 million has to have its own niche, and be better served.
 
Balloonchaser
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:29 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:33 pm

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:
enilria wrote:
7Q AVL-VRB SEP 0.3>0.0[0.3]
7Q HPN-VRB SEP 0.3>0.0[0] OCT 0.3>0[0]
*7Q ISP-MLB SEP 0>0.3[0] OCT 0>0.3[0] NOV 0>0.3[0] DEC 0>0.3[0]
*7Q PWM-VRB SEP 0.3>0.0[0] OCT 0.3>0[0] NOV 0.3>0[0] DEC 0.3>0[0]


Yikes. Those are some close-in cuts for Elite Airways.


I love how they all got cut... But they add ISP back...

Hopefully they will expand out of ISP and maybe this could be a turn for the better
 
HeeseokKoo
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:54 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:40 pm

BA wrote:
enilria wrote:
OZ feeling impact of KEDL JV?
*OZ ICN-SEA NOV 1.0>0.7[1.0] DEC 1.0>0.7[1.0] JAN 1.0>0.7[1.0] FEB 1.0>0.7[1.0] MAR 1.0>0.7[1.0]


This past winter was the first time OZ operated SEA daily. Prior winters it's always been 5x weekly with daily service only in the summer.

Perhaps they realized daily was too much for the winter. Last month they switched the route to their new A350s.

OZ, who recently celebrated that all US routes are in daily operation, is reducing SEA ORD HNL to 5/w this winter.

Schedule change notification email from Asiana blames Korean gov for recommending relaxing operation rather than blaming itself for poor recent maintenance-related on-time performance.
 
User avatar
enilria
Topic Author
Posts: 10377
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:41 pm

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Regarding the discussion about DL ending DTW-CAK:
DTW-CAK was a capacity-purchase / fixed-fee route, typically operated by OO CR2, prior to that 9E CR2 and going back further XJ SF3.
It was not an at-risk route, although in theory has the hallmarks of potentially being one. There are a few other routes in the past few years that moved from fixed-fee to at-risk/pro-rate flights, typically ones that OO took over from 9E.

Note that the pro-rate/at-risk routes, are not all EAS. A good portion are EAS so in essense a good portion of the revenue is subsided, but there are some that are not EAS routes. Here's a fairly recent list of the routes that OO operates under the pro-rate / at-risk agreement, that utilizes 24 CRJ-200s:
For Delta Express flight number range from 4277-4296 and 7359-7439

From SLC:
BTM - Butte, MT
CDC - Cedar City, UT
COD - Cody, WY
CPR - Casper, WY
EKO - Elko, NV
GJT - Grand Junction, CO
LWS - Lewiston, ID
PIH - Pocatello, ID
SGU - St George, UT
TWF - Twin Falls, ID
WYS - West Yellowstone, MT (Summer Seasonal)

From MSP:
ABR - Aberdeen, SD
BJI - Bemidji - MN
BRD - Brainerd, MN
HIB - Hibbing, MN
IMT - Iron Mountain, WI
INL - International Falls, MN
LSE - La Crosse, WI
MQT/SAW - Marquette, MN
RHI - Rhinelander, WI

From DTW:
APN - Alpena, MI
BGM - Binghamton, NY
CIU - Sault Ste Marie, MI
ERI - Erie, PA
ESC - Escanaba, MI
IMT - Iron Mountain, WI
ITH - Ithaca, NY
MQT/SAW - Marquette, MI
PLN - Pellston, MI
SCE/UNV - State College, PA
SWF - Newburgh, NY

marvinanderson1 wrote:
Maybe CAK director McQueen should make an earlier departure than December. Hopefully the new airport director Comacho is relaying his vision and speaking to Airlines pre his official October 1 reign. Obviously a new vision is badly needed at CAK. A region of 1.2 million has to have its own niche, and be better served.

The bad news for CAK getting an "at-risk" flight is that all those at-risk markets have very little or zero ULCC service compared to NK at CAK. Still possible but definitely a headwind.

I'm not sure the CEO will matter. The problem at its core is that CLE got CAK's low fare service because the hub closed. CAK is still hanging on to NK, but CLE has low fare service in all those markets. CAK was viable in more markets when it was the low fare airport for CLE. Those days are gone.
 
jmertic
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 6:44 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:39 pm

enilria wrote:
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Regarding the discussion about DL ending DTW-CAK:
DTW-CAK was a capacity-purchase / fixed-fee route, typically operated by OO CR2, prior to that 9E CR2 and going back further XJ SF3.
It was not an at-risk route, although in theory has the hallmarks of potentially being one. There are a few other routes in the past few years that moved from fixed-fee to at-risk/pro-rate flights, typically ones that OO took over from 9E.

Note that the pro-rate/at-risk routes, are not all EAS. A good portion are EAS so in essense a good portion of the revenue is subsided, but there are some that are not EAS routes. Here's a fairly recent list of the routes that OO operates under the pro-rate / at-risk agreement, that utilizes 24 CRJ-200s:
For Delta Express flight number range from 4277-4296 and 7359-7439

From SLC:
BTM - Butte, MT
CDC - Cedar City, UT
COD - Cody, WY
CPR - Casper, WY
EKO - Elko, NV
GJT - Grand Junction, CO
LWS - Lewiston, ID
PIH - Pocatello, ID
SGU - St George, UT
TWF - Twin Falls, ID
WYS - West Yellowstone, MT (Summer Seasonal)

From MSP:
ABR - Aberdeen, SD
BJI - Bemidji - MN
BRD - Brainerd, MN
HIB - Hibbing, MN
IMT - Iron Mountain, WI
INL - International Falls, MN
LSE - La Crosse, WI
MQT/SAW - Marquette, MN
RHI - Rhinelander, WI

From DTW:
APN - Alpena, MI
BGM - Binghamton, NY
CIU - Sault Ste Marie, MI
ERI - Erie, PA
ESC - Escanaba, MI
IMT - Iron Mountain, WI
ITH - Ithaca, NY
MQT/SAW - Marquette, MI
PLN - Pellston, MI
SCE/UNV - State College, PA
SWF - Newburgh, NY

marvinanderson1 wrote:
Maybe CAK director McQueen should make an earlier departure than December. Hopefully the new airport director Comacho is relaying his vision and speaking to Airlines pre his official October 1 reign. Obviously a new vision is badly needed at CAK. A region of 1.2 million has to have its own niche, and be better served.

The bad news for CAK getting an "at-risk" flight is that all those at-risk markets have very little or zero ULCC service compared to NK at CAK. Still possible but definitely a headwind.

I'm not sure the CEO will matter. The problem at its core is that CLE got CAK's low fare service because the hub closed. CAK is still hanging on to NK, but CLE has low fare service in all those markets. CAK was viable in more markets when it was the low fare airport for CLE. Those days are gone.


That pretty much sums up the CLE/CAK dynamic. CAK is no longer the low cost option compared to CLE.

The challenge for CAK is embracing the new market dynamics. It does have advantages compared to CLE ( the terminal situation for one ) - the new CEO needs to find out how to make them relevant for the traveller.
 
User avatar
enilria
Topic Author
Posts: 10377
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:41 pm

jmertic wrote:
enilria wrote:
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Regarding the discussion about DL ending DTW-CAK:
DTW-CAK was a capacity-purchase / fixed-fee route, typically operated by OO CR2, prior to that 9E CR2 and going back further XJ SF3.
It was not an at-risk route, although in theory has the hallmarks of potentially being one. There are a few other routes in the past few years that moved from fixed-fee to at-risk/pro-rate flights, typically ones that OO took over from 9E.

Note that the pro-rate/at-risk routes, are not all EAS. A good portion are EAS so in essense a good portion of the revenue is subsided, but there are some that are not EAS routes. Here's a fairly recent list of the routes that OO operates under the pro-rate / at-risk agreement, that utilizes 24 CRJ-200s:
For Delta Express flight number range from 4277-4296 and 7359-7439

From SLC:
BTM - Butte, MT
CDC - Cedar City, UT
COD - Cody, WY
CPR - Casper, WY
EKO - Elko, NV
GJT - Grand Junction, CO
LWS - Lewiston, ID
PIH - Pocatello, ID
SGU - St George, UT
TWF - Twin Falls, ID
WYS - West Yellowstone, MT (Summer Seasonal)

From MSP:
ABR - Aberdeen, SD
BJI - Bemidji - MN
BRD - Brainerd, MN
HIB - Hibbing, MN
IMT - Iron Mountain, WI
INL - International Falls, MN
LSE - La Crosse, WI
MQT/SAW - Marquette, MN
RHI - Rhinelander, WI

From DTW:
APN - Alpena, MI
BGM - Binghamton, NY
CIU - Sault Ste Marie, MI
ERI - Erie, PA
ESC - Escanaba, MI
IMT - Iron Mountain, WI
ITH - Ithaca, NY
MQT/SAW - Marquette, MI
PLN - Pellston, MI
SCE/UNV - State College, PA
SWF - Newburgh, NY

marvinanderson1 wrote:
Maybe CAK director McQueen should make an earlier departure than December. Hopefully the new airport director Comacho is relaying his vision and speaking to Airlines pre his official October 1 reign. Obviously a new vision is badly needed at CAK. A region of 1.2 million has to have its own niche, and be better served.

The bad news for CAK getting an "at-risk" flight is that all those at-risk markets have very little or zero ULCC service compared to NK at CAK. Still possible but definitely a headwind.

I'm not sure the CEO will matter. The problem at its core is that CLE got CAK's low fare service because the hub closed. CAK is still hanging on to NK, but CLE has low fare service in all those markets. CAK was viable in more markets when it was the low fare airport for CLE. Those days are gone.


That pretty much sums up the CLE/CAK dynamic. CAK is no longer the low cost option compared to CLE.

The challenge for CAK is embracing the new market dynamics. It does have advantages compared to CLE ( the terminal situation for one ) - the new CEO needs to find out how to make them relevant for the traveller.

I don't know what they can do. If they had somehow gotten WOW that might have put them back on the map, but that didn't happen and people won't use the more remote airport unless it's cheaper. That's the bottom line. Terminal convenience is nothing compared to price.
 
marvinanderson1
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:39 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:42 pm

I agree with much that is said, But CAK needs to be the low cost option for CAK and not CLE. I will reserve my evaluation until the new CEO comes forth with his strategy, which I believe will be totally different from the present CEO strategy. Airline service is so cyclical that things can change quickly. I don't believe McQueen is truly an airport growth leader but more a management type, I believe Comacho is more an air service growth leader like the previous CEO Fred Krum. Another thing , anytime an area has that large a population some airline will always step up and give it a try, I say within six months to a year we will see
 
User avatar
enilria
Topic Author
Posts: 10377
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:07 pm

marvinanderson1 wrote:
I agree with much that is said, But CAK needs to be the low cost option for CAK and not CLE. I will reserve my evaluation until the new CEO comes forth with his strategy, which I believe will be totally different from the present CEO strategy. Airline service is so cyclical that things can change quickly. I don't believe McQueen is truly an airport growth leader but more a management type, I believe Comacho is more an air service growth leader like the previous CEO Fred Krum. Another thing , anytime an area has that large a population some airline will always step up and give it a try, I say within six months to a year we will see

So, I want CAK to succeed like it did in the past. It's a nice airport.

Having said that, if you look at the population where CAK is the closest option and compare that to other airports in the USA, I think you'll find CAK is overserved relative to nearly all of them. Hudson, OH is about the mid-point between CLE and CAK. There's less than 500,000 people South of that in CAK's catchment (the official population of Akron and Canton is 264,000 combined). That's the problem. At even 500,000 people it's hard to support just hub service on RJs. To extend their catchment North of Hudson where CLE is the closer option they have to be cheaper than CLE and I don't see that scenario. Even if they get more LCC service it's unlikely they will have destinations on a ULCC that CLE doesn't have. That's what they have to get to draw North of Hudson and be able to sustain more service.

Looking at T100, NK's LFs in CAK are not great. FLL has been in the 50s for a few months. MYR was bad. Averaged 68%. Only MCO looks pretty solid.
 
Kronesian
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:26 pm

Balloonchaser wrote:
AVLAirlineFreq wrote:
enilria wrote:
7Q AVL-VRB SEP 0.3>0.0[0.3]
7Q HPN-VRB SEP 0.3>0.0[0] OCT 0.3>0[0]
*7Q ISP-MLB SEP 0>0.3[0] OCT 0>0.3[0] NOV 0>0.3[0] DEC 0>0.3[0]
*7Q PWM-VRB SEP 0.3>0.0[0] OCT 0.3>0[0] NOV 0.3>0[0] DEC 0.3>0[0]


Yikes. Those are some close-in cuts for Elite Airways.


I love how they all got cut... But they add ISP back...

Hopefully they will expand out of ISP and maybe this could be a turn for the better


Looks like Elite added Bimini back to their schedule, it is now bookable from PWM/MLB from September 6th.
KMLB
 
marvinanderson1
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:39 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:31 pm

Its not that simplistic, N.E. Ohio is a lot more fluid than just stating 264,000 in the cities of Akron/ Canton, that's like saying there is only 2.7 million in my home city Chicago, when the metro area has 10 million. The greatest majority of population in N.E Ohio is far east of CLE. and at 4 million. There is a market for CAK if the new CEO can identify and obtain the right Airline. I flew into CAK, my former hometown area from Chicago on AA where I now live, and I was surprised how many Youngstown area flyers who prefer CAK over CLE or PIT who were on that flight. This is the triangle area that should be sought after. NK flew FLL and MYR at a time many flyers including myself were very sceptical of NK. Not now.
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:06 pm

enilria wrote:
Double daily in January??? Strange choice. 2X A319s
AA CMH-LAX DEC 1.1>2[0.8] JAN 1.0>2[0.6] FEB 1.0>2[0.7] MAR 1.0>2[0.8] APR 1.0>2[1.0] MAY 1.0>2[1.0]


AA's successes are as shocking as its failures. AA can't make LAX-MSP or LAX-PIT work, but they can manage LAX-BDL and LAX-CMH just fine?

enilria wrote:
AA DFW-JFK JAN 3>4[1.1] FEB 3>4[1.1] MAR 3>4[1.0] APR 3>4[1.0] MAY 3>4[1.0]


That JFK-DEN slot had to be used for something. Looks like squatting on scarce NYC slots is still very much a part of this airline's strategy - just as it was for PMAA and PMUS...

enilria wrote:
2X 738s
AA LAX-MSY DEC 1.1>2[0.9] JAN 1.0>2[1.0] FEB 1.0>2[1.0] MAR 1.0>2[1.0] APR 1.0>2[1.0] MAY 1.0>2[1.0]


They've left all the PHX-MSY flying to WN since Katrina. Wonder if we could see that route come back, or perhaps the addition of NYC-MSY service?

enilria wrote:
Poor CAK. Just got a new CEO I read and they lose another key route.
**DL CAK-DTW DEC 3>0[3] JAN 3>0[3] FEB 3>0[3] MAR 3>0[3] APR 3>0[3] MAY 3>0[3]


DTW is a great place to connect, but let's face it, there was no O&D on this route. CAK's new westbound/southbound connecting options via ORD (AA) and IAH (UA) are surely much more exciting and dare I say valuable to Northeast Ohio travelers than this ever was...

enilria wrote:
Temp suspension I think
*DL CVG-YYZ JAN 0.4>0[0.3] FEB 0.4>0[0.4]


I realize local Cincinnati area FFer loyalty is important to consider...but how was this frequency ever supposed to be competitive vs. AC?

enilria wrote:
DL LAX-MIA DEC 0.4>0[0.4]


So is this just a further seasonal reduction, or are they completely throwing in the towel on this route? I realize it's hard to compete against an AA hub-hub service, but this still seems crazy to me. I never thought I'd say this but...could this be an opportunity for UA?

enilria wrote:
F9 DEN-YYC DEC 0>0.2[0] JAN 0>0.2[0]


They must be doing pretty well at YYC if they can manage this during Calgary's frigid winters!

enilria wrote:
WN putting the final nails in B6 at LGB
*WN DEN-LGB DEC 0>0.5[0.4]
*WN LAS-LGB DEC 0.5>3[0.9]
*WN LGB-SMF DEC 2.0>4[2]


These flights are probably using temporary slots, but probably give us a very good idea of what WN intends to do with permanent LGB slots that may come available. AFAIK, B6 still hasn't officially forfeited any of its LGB slots (yet). It will be interesting to see if WN ever has any desire to try something like BWI/DAL/MDW/PDX/PHX/SFO/SJC-LGB.

enilria wrote:
WS DEN-YYC NOV 0.5>0.2[0] DEC 0.5>0.2[0] JAN 0.5>0.2[0] FEB 0.5>0.2[0] MAR 0.5>0.2[0.4] APR 0.5>0.2[0.5] MAY 0.5>0.2[0.5]


Already down to the same frequency as F9. This service probably won't last much longer!

enilria wrote:
WS LAX-YYZ NOV 1.0>0.5[1.0] DEC 1.0>0.5[1.0] JAN 1.0>0.5[1.0] FEB 1.0>0.5[1.0] MAR 1.0>0.5[1.0] APR 1.0>0.6[1.0]


Wow. I guess this route is hard for anyone that isn't AA (long the preferred carrier by the LA entertainment industry) and AC (the obvious favorite of Canadian business travelers and other important FFers).
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:31 pm

SurfandSnow wrote:
DTW is a great place to connect, but let's face it, there was no O&D on this route. CAK's new westbound/southbound connecting options via ORD (AA) and IAH (UA) are surely much more exciting and dare I say valuable to Northeast Ohio travelers than this ever was...


Not sure I understand your logic here. CAK has had service to ORD (via UA) for many years — do you really believe AA adding additional flights is “more valuable” to the CAK community than what was (arguably) its best choice to connect to the northeast? Ultimately, AA adding ORD isn’t going to grow the local market - especially when walk-up fares are $200 less down the street at CLE.

As I posted elsewhere, it’s interesting watching UA and AA strengthen their hubs by continually linking them to markets almost entirely dependent on connecting traffic. DL has done this to some extent with SLC, but at DTW and MSP, it’s philosophy is reversed.

These flights are probably using temporary slots, but probably give us a very good idea of what WN intends to do with permanent LGB slots that may come available. AFAIK, B6 still hasn't officially forfeited any of its LGB slots (yet). It will be interesting to see if WN ever has any desire to try something like BWI/DAL/MDW/PDX/PHX/SFO/SJC-LGB.


Not targeting your posting, but I’m continually amazed at how much more love LGB receives on a.net than... you know, people living near LGB... :flamed:
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
cvgComair
Posts: 2040
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:48 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:11 pm

SurfandSnow wrote:
enilria wrote:
Temp suspension I think
*DL CVG-YYZ JAN 0.4>0[0.3] FEB 0.4>0[0.4]
I realize local Cincinnati area FFer loyalty is important to consider...but how was this frequency ever supposed to be competitive vs. AC?

Normally the route is 2x/day, so usually the frequency is much higher. Traffic normally dips for Jan/Feb so it is not surprising to see them drop the route for this short period. Loads were around 50% for Jan/Feb 2018.
 
kavok
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 10:12 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:51 pm

In regards to the CAK discussion, one thing is that hasn’t been pointed out is that historically Northeastern Ohio has been a United FF area, because of the former hub. Even though the hub is gone, United is still (while disliked because of the de-Hub) the preferred airline for much of the business community because of that legacy. Closer to Youngstown there may be some AA legacies from US at PIT... but historically the area has not been a “Delta Region”.

And since we are talking about pax taking a RJ from CAK to DTW and connecting... that traffic is mostly business traffic, and business traffic where DL is the historically weakest of the three. Hence the concentration of DL resources to the larger CLE, and then leaving what business pax remains (for DL at CAK) complimented with some snowbird traffic on the CAK-ATL route.
 
User avatar
enilria
Topic Author
Posts: 10377
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:18 pm

marvinanderson1 wrote:
The greatest majority of population in N.E Ohio is far east of CLE. and at 4 million.

Sure, but again those people are closer to CLE. Why would they drive further for at best the same prices to the same destinations? It's not as if this problem is limited to CAK. Many of the alternate airports are seeing this kind of decline as the primary airports regain control. AZA/FNT/PIE/SFB/ACY have all lost a fair amount of service from their peaks. Even OAK has been backpedaling off a much larger base. Only really SWF is on the rise and maybe ORH although that's more political.
SurfandSnow wrote:
They must be doing pretty well at YYC if they can manage this during Calgary's frigid winters!

Plus it's ski to ski which is hard.
SurfandSnow wrote:
These flights are probably using temporary slots, but probably give us a very good idea of what WN intends to do with permanent LGB slots that may come available. AFAIK, B6 still hasn't officially forfeited any of its LGB slots (yet). It will be interesting to see if WN ever has any desire to try something like BWI/DAL/MDW/PDX/PHX/SFO/SJC-LGB.

I expect WN to ramp up and then roll back after B6 cuts to transcons or just leaves.
compensateme wrote:
Not targeting your posting, but I’m continually amazed at how much more love LGB receives on a.net than... you know, people living near LGB...

To be honest, I don't understand why LGB didn't succeed for B6. The geography of LGB seems to me to be as good or better than any of the other LA airports. I guess it was a question of passenger loyalty and mind share for wn.com winning over geographical location.
kavok wrote:
In regards to the CAK discussion, one thing is that hasn’t been pointed out is that historically Northeastern Ohio has been a United FF area, because of the former hub. Even though the hub is gone, United is still (while disliked because of the de-Hub) the preferred airline for much of the business community because of that legacy. Closer to Youngstown there may be some AA legacies from US at PIT... but historically the area has not been a “Delta Region”.

That's a bigger problem we haven't really even talked about. CAK has an opportunity to get some LCC service growth and a few RJs, but the passenger loyalty situation at CLE for UA keeps CAK from getting much legacy traction. Probably their best option is trying to convince UA that in order to hold on as long as possible to their regional FFP strength they need to operate as much as possible from CAK. Not sure UA will go for that, though.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 3634
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:56 pm

enilria wrote:
That's a bigger problem we haven't really even talked about. CAK has an opportunity to get some LCC service growth and a few RJs, but the passenger loyalty situation at CLE for UA keeps CAK from getting much legacy traction. Probably their best option is trying to convince UA that in order to hold on as long as possible to their regional FFP strength they need to operate as much as possible from CAK. Not sure UA will go for that, though.

UA started EWR not all that long ago, they also launched IAH service this June. UA total capacity is up almost 100% since 2014. Fair to say they think CAK is a market worth investing in.
 
drdisque
Posts: 1396
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:57 am

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:06 pm

BenflysDTW wrote:
Like I said, expect more Crj 200 cuts in the future. With all the regional cuts from DTW, the focus is becoming more on an O/D hub. Expect APN, CIU, IMT, ESC etc... to be cut as well in the near future...


Those are all EAS routes flown at-risk by OO. It's not up to DL if they get dropped or not. CIU prints money and has a very low subsidy (I know that sounds contradictory - why would a route that prints money need a subsidy? The answer is complex and involves a bit of implicit collusion on the part of DL, UA, and OO). AA would jump all over it if OO dropped it. APN, IMT, and ESC are more actually dependent on their subsidy and if push comes to shove, I think APN would be in the most danger.

CAK was CPA (not at-risk flying).
 
marvinanderson1
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:39 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:20 pm

One thing that was said by CAK new CEO was that all options will be on the table. Meaning that even the incentive strategy, that PIT is using to perfection will be in operation. That is a major shift from the more conservative approach that has been used by past CEO s. As I have stated N.E Ohio is a region where traditional norms are not applicable, there are great areas where people will not fly out of CLE unless its totally necessary. What growth there is in N.E Ohio is all Southward. Lastly I am happy that CLE is doing much better, and hopefully CAK can reach its full capacity also, because it is important and its many in the regions first choice , including mine , flying in from Chicago.
 
User avatar
enilria
Topic Author
Posts: 10377
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:18 pm

Rdh3e wrote:
enilria wrote:
That's a bigger problem we haven't really even talked about. CAK has an opportunity to get some LCC service growth and a few RJs, but the passenger loyalty situation at CLE for UA keeps CAK from getting much legacy traction. Probably their best option is trying to convince UA that in order to hold on as long as possible to their regional FFP strength they need to operate as much as possible from CAK. Not sure UA will go for that, though.

UA started EWR not all that long ago, they also launched IAH service this June. UA total capacity is up almost 100% since 2014. Fair to say they think CAK is a market worth investing in.

It's something, but it's pretty few seats compared to what F9 and FL were doing. I'm talking about how to get back there. Not sure it's possible.
marvinanderson1 wrote:
One thing that was said by CAK new CEO was that all options will be on the table. Meaning that even the incentive strategy, that PIT is using to perfection will be in operation. That is a major shift from the more conservative approach that has been used by past CEO s. As I have stated N.E Ohio is a region where traditional norms are not applicable, there are great areas where people will not fly out of CLE unless its totally necessary. What growth there is in N.E Ohio is all Southward. Lastly I am happy that CLE is doing much better, and hopefully CAK can reach its full capacity also, because it is important and its many in the regions first choice , including mine , flying in from Chicago.

PIT is getting $5m/year from casinos (or was it more than that?) due to a bubba-deal the State pushed through. CAK would need something like that.
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4911
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:31 pm

It really is a shame how Long Beach treated JetBlue. The airline was such a big sponsor to the community and tried everything.

Some people in government looked at B6 as this entity that can't leave and we can shake them dry for money. I hope they keep their current operation, but i am sure WN will swoop in and grab every slot that opens if they don't. Its such a cool airport if you are an aviation person you have to visit!

The airport will be fine in the end. Might just be more of a southwest destination than B6.
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 3310
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:33 pm

SurfandSnow wrote:
enilria wrote:
enilria wrote:
AA DFW-JFK JAN 3>4[1.1] FEB 3>4[1.1] MAR 3>4[1.0] APR 3>4[1.0] MAY 3>4[1.0]


That JFK-DEN slot had to be used for something. Looks like squatting on scarce NYC slots is still very much a part of this airline's strategy - just as it was for PMAA and PMUS...


I thought JFK-DEN was a really strange addition to begin with. DEN is well served by DL and B6 from JFK, and there are plenty of choices from LGA and EWR. As this flight was timed to exist almost entirely on O&D, this route never made any sense to begin with.

enilria wrote:
I expect WN to ramp up and then roll back after B6 cuts to transcons or just leaves.

To be honest, I don't understand why LGB didn't succeed for B6. The geography of LGB seems to me to be as good or better than any of the other LA airports. I guess it was a question of passenger loyalty and mind share for wn.com winning over geographical location.


I would expect WN to try to capture as many LGB slots as possible if/when B6 leaves, if only because there are no other options for growth in LA (at least in the short/medium term). My personal view is that B6 will drop all LGB flying except for JFK/BOS by end of next year (if not sooner) as they face greater pressure to improve margins. There is no strategic reason for B6 to divert any of its limited resources to the blood bath that is intra-West flying.

I give B6 a lot of credit for trying many different things to make LGB work. Ultimately it comes down to having too few slots to build relevance among LGB/LA-area flyers, which meant that LGB was consistently yielding (far) below LAX, SNA, and even BUR. It's hard to build a profitable LA-based following when you can't get Angelinos to Phoenix, Denver, Chicago, Dallas, etc.

At the end of the day, B6 missed the boat on building up at LAX when there was still space, or even setting up shop at SFO (before VX was born). Granted, hindsight is always 2020, and frankly I bet B6 is happier to be the biggest carrier at its profitable BOS and FLL focus cities rather than duking it out against AA/UA/DL/WN/AS at LAX.
 
User avatar
enilria
Topic Author
Posts: 10377
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:46 pm

jetbluefan1 wrote:
SurfandSnow wrote:
enilria wrote:


That JFK-DEN slot had to be used for something. Looks like squatting on scarce NYC slots is still very much a part of this airline's strategy - just as it was for PMAA and PMUS...


I thought JFK-DEN was a really strange addition to begin with. DEN is well served by DL and B6 from JFK, and there are plenty of choices from LGA and EWR. As this flight was timed to exist almost entirely on O&D, this route never made any sense to begin with.

enilria wrote:
I expect WN to ramp up and then roll back after B6 cuts to transcons or just leaves.

To be honest, I don't understand why LGB didn't succeed for B6. The geography of LGB seems to me to be as good or better than any of the other LA airports. I guess it was a question of passenger loyalty and mind share for wn.com winning over geographical location.


I would expect WN to try to capture as many LGB slots as possible if/when B6 leaves, if only because there are no other options for growth in LA (at least in the short/medium term). My personal view is that B6 will drop all LGB flying except for JFK/BOS by end of next year (if not sooner) as they face greater pressure to improve margins. There is no strategic reason for B6 to divert any of its limited resources to the blood bath that is intra-West flying.

I give B6 a lot of credit for trying many different things to make LGB work. Ultimately it comes down to having too few slots to build relevance among LGB/LA-area flyers, which meant that LGB was consistently yielding (far) below LAX, SNA, and even BUR. It's hard to build a profitable LA-based following when you can't get Angelinos to Phoenix, Denver, Chicago, Dallas, etc.

At the end of the day, B6 missed the boat on building up at LAX when there was still space, or even setting up shop at SFO (before VX was born). Granted, hindsight is always 2020, and frankly I bet B6 is happier to be the biggest carrier at its profitable BOS and FLL focus cities rather than duking it out against AA/UA/DL/WN/AS at LAX.

To me the worse part of B6 losing in LGB and VX getting bought by AS is that it means they are left without a West Coast focus which pushes them toward an eventual merger with AS.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24981
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:15 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
It really is a shame how Long Beach treated JetBlue. The airline was such a big sponsor to the community and tried everything.

Some people in government looked at B6 as this entity that can't leave and we can shake them dry for money. I hope they keep their current operation, but i am sure WN will swoop in and grab every slot that opens if they don't. Its such a cool airport if you are an aviation person you have to visit!

The airport will be fine in the end. Might just be more of a southwest destination than B6.


I see it the other way.

The shame is how JetBlue turned out to be such a poor neighbour and willfully and repeatedly ignored city noise ordinance. They did themselves zero favours with the City and community by their actions.

At the end, Southwest will, in my opinion, be a much better neighbour and a good match for LGB. SWA is already the biggest carrier in California and its service at LGB will fit in nicely to its route portfolio and offer travellers another airport option in the LA basin.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1552
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:03 am

enilria wrote:
jetbluefan1 wrote:
SurfandSnow wrote:


I thought JFK-DEN was a really strange addition to begin with. DEN is well served by DL and B6 from JFK, and there are plenty of choices from LGA and EWR. As this flight was timed to exist almost entirely on O&D, this route never made any sense to begin with.

enilria wrote:
I expect WN to ramp up and then roll back after B6 cuts to transcons or just leaves.

To be honest, I don't understand why LGB didn't succeed for B6. The geography of LGB seems to me to be as good or better than any of the other LA airports. I guess it was a question of passenger loyalty and mind share for wn.com winning over geographical location.


I would expect WN to try to capture as many LGB slots as possible if/when B6 leaves, if only because there are no other options for growth in LA (at least in the short/medium term). My personal view is that B6 will drop all LGB flying except for JFK/BOS by end of next year (if not sooner) as they face greater pressure to improve margins. There is no strategic reason for B6 to divert any of its limited resources to the blood bath that is intra-West flying.

I give B6 a lot of credit for trying many different things to make LGB work. Ultimately it comes down to having too few slots to build relevance among LGB/LA-area flyers, which meant that LGB was consistently yielding (far) below LAX, SNA, and even BUR. It's hard to build a profitable LA-based following when you can't get Angelinos to Phoenix, Denver, Chicago, Dallas, etc.

At the end of the day, B6 missed the boat on building up at LAX when there was still space, or even setting up shop at SFO (before VX was born). Granted, hindsight is always 2020, and frankly I bet B6 is happier to be the biggest carrier at its profitable BOS and FLL focus cities rather than duking it out against AA/UA/DL/WN/AS at LAX.

To me the worse part of B6 losing in LGB and VX getting bought by AS is that it means they are left without a West Coast focus which pushes them toward an eventual merger with AS.


What about another city, one with fewer restrictions? One with an FIS? Maybe ONT?

What about a central or Northern California city? SFO, SJC, OAK, SMF?
 
User avatar
enilria
Topic Author
Posts: 10377
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:47 pm

AirFiero wrote:
What about another city, one with fewer restrictions? One with an FIS? Maybe ONT?

What about a central or Northern California city? SFO, SJC, OAK, SMF?

Of course ONT could happen, but keep in mind they are basically bailing out of LGB because WN got in. WN is kinda already operating a few flights at ONT...and all those other airports. LOL
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1552
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:25 pm

enilria wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
What about another city, one with fewer restrictions? One with an FIS? Maybe ONT?

What about a central or Northern California city? SFO, SJC, OAK, SMF?

Of course ONT could happen, but keep in mind they are basically bailing out of LGB because WN got in. WN is kinda already operating a few flights at ONT...and all those other airports. LOL


Yes, as does LAX, which has a B6 presence. By that logic, B6 shouldn’t bother serving any California city but Fresno or Bakersfield. So I’m not seeing the humor here.

Someone mentioned “focus city” for B6 on the west coast. So if LGB is a bust, is B6 done with regard to west coast regional routes?
 
tphuang
Posts: 5703
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:08 pm

AirFiero wrote:
enilria wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
What about another city, one with fewer restrictions? One with an FIS? Maybe ONT?

What about a central or Northern California city? SFO, SJC, OAK, SMF?

Of course ONT could happen, but keep in mind they are basically bailing out of LGB because WN got in. WN is kinda already operating a few flights at ONT...and all those other airports. LOL


Yes, as does LAX, which has a B6 presence. By that logic, B6 shouldn’t bother serving any California city but Fresno or Bakersfield. So I’m not seeing the humor here.

Someone mentioned “focus city” for B6 on the west coast. So if LGB is a bust, is B6 done with regard to west coast regional routes?


They probably always need a base in LA area due to their transcon success, but I think you will see more cuts to LGB next year among the west coast routes.

I did a comparison a while ago between yields out of ONT/BUR/LGB amongst non-B6 routes, ONT was surprisingly the highest. I think it's an underserved airport. They will find out with their new JFK-ONT route to see how good the yield is. If it looks good, maybe they can move their old LGB plan of Mexican flights to ONT. At present time, they need to be laser focused in maintaining their east coast position. If they can fend off DL at BOS and WN at FLL, they will be in a better position to grow elsewhere.
 
User avatar
enilria
Topic Author
Posts: 10377
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:53 pm

AirFiero wrote:
enilria wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
What about another city, one with fewer restrictions? One with an FIS? Maybe ONT?

What about a central or Northern California city? SFO, SJC, OAK, SMF?

Of course ONT could happen, but keep in mind they are basically bailing out of LGB because WN got in. WN is kinda already operating a few flights at ONT...and all those other airports. LOL


Yes, as does LAX, which has a B6 presence.

B6 has ZERO regional service from LAX and doesn't compete with WN on a single route. How do you have a focus city without any short-haul or even medium-haul flights? You don't. B6's shortest route from LAX is MCO. I'd say you made my point that B6 avoids WN in the L.A. market which means an ONT focus city is completely out of character...as I said. Still could happen, but it's a strategy change.
 
User avatar
enilria
Topic Author
Posts: 10377
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:55 pm

tphuang wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
enilria wrote:
Of course ONT could happen, but keep in mind they are basically bailing out of LGB because WN got in. WN is kinda already operating a few flights at ONT...and all those other airports. LOL


Yes, as does LAX, which has a B6 presence. By that logic, B6 shouldn’t bother serving any California city but Fresno or Bakersfield. So I’m not seeing the humor here.

Someone mentioned “focus city” for B6 on the west coast. So if LGB is a bust, is B6 done with regard to west coast regional routes?


They probably always need a base in LA area due to their transcon success, but I think you will see more cuts to LGB next year among the west coast routes.

I did a comparison a while ago between yields out of ONT/BUR/LGB amongst non-B6 routes, ONT was surprisingly the highest. I think it's an underserved airport. They will find out with their new JFK-ONT route to see how good the yield is. If it looks good, maybe they can move their old LGB plan of Mexican flights to ONT. At present time, they need to be laser focused in maintaining their east coast position. If they can fend off DL at BOS and WN at FLL, they will be in a better position to grow elsewhere.

I think both AS and B6 are resigned to the fact they will eventually merge and see no reason to spend their gold creating something that will be a money-losing anti-trust obstacle in the other's backyard. BTW, I don't want them to merge. It's bad for competition, but at this point it's inevitable. There are no partners left that make more sense and the route structure is perfect. Yes, fleet is crap. It always is in mergers. HA/NK/F9/G4 all add no real network value to create a national 5th airline catering to the usual business clientelle.
 
capitalflyer
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:43 am

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:26 pm

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Regarding the discussion about DL ending DTW-CAK:
DTW-CAK was a capacity-purchase / fixed-fee route, typically operated by OO CR2, prior to that 9E CR2 and going back further XJ SF3.
It was not an at-risk route, although in theory has the hallmarks of potentially being one. There are a few other routes in the past few years that moved from fixed-fee to at-risk/pro-rate flights, typically ones that OO took over from 9E.

Note that the pro-rate/at-risk routes, are not all EAS. A good portion are EAS so in essense a good portion of the revenue is subsided, but there are some that are not EAS routes. Here's a fairly recent list of the routes that OO operates under the pro-rate / at-risk agreement, that utilizes 24 CRJ-200s:
For Delta Express flight number range from 4277-4296 and 7359-7439

From SLC:
BTM - Butte, MT
CDC - Cedar City, UT
COD - Cody, WY
CPR - Casper, WY
EKO - Elko, NV
GJT - Grand Junction, CO
LWS - Lewiston, ID
PIH - Pocatello, ID
SGU - St George, UT
TWF - Twin Falls, ID
WYS - West Yellowstone, MT (Summer Seasonal)

From MSP:
ABR - Aberdeen, SD
BJI - Bemidji - MN
BRD - Brainerd, MN
HIB - Hibbing, MN
IMT - Iron Mountain, WI
INL - International Falls, MN
LSE - La Crosse, WI
MQT/SAW - Marquette, MN
RHI - Rhinelander, WI

From DTW:
APN - Alpena, MI
BGM - Binghamton, NY
CIU - Sault Ste Marie, MI
ERI - Erie, PA
ESC - Escanaba, MI
IMT - Iron Mountain, WI
ITH - Ithaca, NY
MQT/SAW - Marquette, MI
PLN - Pellston, MI
SCE/UNV - State College, PA
SWF - Newburgh, NY



I don't get why BGM,ITH,SWF and to some extent SCE all connect to DTW. Unless DL is moving all connecting traffic out of NY entirely. Perhaps this is the trend with AA (draw down of connections at JFK) and UA (shift of connections from EWR to IAD) as well. Will NY no longer be a "hub" in the traditional sense for domestic connections and serve only O&D/International Connections.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7191
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:34 pm

jetbluefan1 wrote:
Ultimately it comes down to having too few slots to build relevance among LGB/LA-area flyers, which meant that LGB was consistently yielding (far) below LAX, SNA, and even BUR. It's hard to build a profitable LA-based following when you can't get Angelinos to Phoenix, Denver, Chicago, Dallas, etc.


This was always the critical flaw with the LGB focus strategy. There just aren't enough slots to offer both a competitive route structure and a competitive schedule. When WN offers SNA/LAX-OAK/SJC at frequencies ranging from 8 daily to 14 daily, two or three daily in each market are horribly uncompetitive. On the flip side, with only ~35 slots, a more competitive offering of five or so daily flights only allows the airline to serve a half dozen or so of the critical short-haul markets like OAK, SJC, SFO, LAS, SMF, PHX, DEN, or SLC with a small handful of slots available for important but less schedule-sensitive markets.

enilria wrote:
To be honest, I don't understand why LGB didn't succeed for B6. The geography of LGB seems to me to be as good or better than any of the other LA airports. I guess it was a question of passenger loyalty and mind share for wn.com winning over geographical location.


It's sandwiched between SNA and LAX. That'd be good if the schedules were competitive but they're not thanks to the slots. And absolutely mindshare in WN's favor would have been an important factor, not only in the L.A. market, but at the far end of the spokes as well. OAK is virtually synonymous with WN and it has been for years, and they're the largest carrier by far at SJC, SMF, LAS, and RNO. For short-haul, WN isn't a terrible product. Seatback TV isn't going to drive purchase behavior for flights that are maybe an hour long and WN is consistently ranked high for customer service.

enilria wrote:
I'm not sure the CEO will matter. The problem at its core is that CLE got CAK's low fare service because the hub closed. CAK is still hanging on to NK, but CLE has low fare service in all those markets. CAK was viable in more markets when it was the low fare airport for CLE. Those days are gone.


I'm not sure it made a big difference long-term, but I think CAK courting the ULCCs before WN's departure was a strategic mistake in the sense that it hastened that departure.

marvinanderson1 wrote:
The greatest majority of population in N.E Ohio is far east of CLE. and at 4 million. There is a market for CAK if the new CEO can identify and obtain the right Airline.


The problem with this analysis is like saying that BPT ought to support more service because the region within 50 miles or so has over half a million inhabitants and Southeast Texas has over 7 million. WN buying FL was ultimately a huge loss for CAK because the airport lost key low-fare service to BOS/LGA/DCA as well as ATL & Florida.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7191
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:42 pm

capitalflyer wrote:
I don't get why BGM,ITH,SWF and to some extent SCE all connect to DTW. Unless DL is moving all connecting traffic out of NY entirely. Perhaps this is the trend with AA (draw down of connections at JFK) and UA (shift of connections from EWR to IAD) as well. Will NY no longer be a "hub" in the traditional sense for domestic connections and serve only O&D/International Connections.


LGA is a terrible choice for connections from those cities. There's basically zero O&D traffic to NYC and scarce LGA slots are better utilized for markets where there's appreciable O&D traffic. In the DL network, DTW is ultimately the most logical choice for connections from smaller markets in upstate NY and PA. Somewhat larger markets like ALB or MDT get service to ATL as well. SYR/ROC/BUF have non-stops to LGA because there's actually some O&D traffic on those intrastate routes.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1552
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:49 pm

enilria wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
enilria wrote:
Of course ONT could happen, but keep in mind they are basically bailing out of LGB because WN got in. WN is kinda already operating a few flights at ONT...and all those other airports. LOL


Yes, as does LAX, which has a B6 presence.

B6 has ZERO regional service from LAX and doesn't compete with WN on a single route. How do you have a focus city without any short-haul or even medium-haul flights? You don't. B6's shortest route from LAX is MCO. I'd say you made my point that B6 avoids WN in the L.A. market which means an ONT focus city is completely out of character...as I said. Still could happen, but it's a strategy change.


It depends on what point you think we’re discussing. I’m talking about a west coast presence, and west coast routes. B6 at LGB has them. Does B6 want that west coast presence or not? If LGB is dying, do they want to stay in that game or not? If not, then the whole ONT or LAX question is moot.
 
User avatar
enilria
Topic Author
Posts: 10377
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:11 pm

AirFiero wrote:
enilria wrote:
AirFiero wrote:

Yes, as does LAX, which has a B6 presence.

B6 has ZERO regional service from LAX and doesn't compete with WN on a single route. How do you have a focus city without any short-haul or even medium-haul flights? You don't. B6's shortest route from LAX is MCO. I'd say you made my point that B6 avoids WN in the L.A. market which means an ONT focus city is completely out of character...as I said. Still could happen, but it's a strategy change.


It depends on what point you think we’re discussing. I’m talking about a west coast presence, and west coast routes. B6 at LGB has them. Does B6 want that west coast presence or not? If LGB is dying, do they want to stay in that game or not? If not, then the whole ONT or LAX question is moot.

A West Coast presence is not flying from the West Coast to the East Coast. That's an East Coast presence because it's one piece of the puzzle to a full North America product line in FLL/BOS/NYC. In order to have that sort of product line in the West they need to fly routes less than 2,000 miles and since they are clearly avoiding head to head competition in Cali there are no options other than to change strategies and compete with WN. If they do that they will still have the same problem they had at LGB which is that they are tiny compared to WN no matter what short/intermediate haul they add. Being at the same airport like ONT as opposed to LGB which they had to themselves only makes it worse I think.
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 3310
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:49 pm

LAXintl wrote:
The shame is how JetBlue turned out to be such a poor neighbour and willfully and repeatedly ignored city noise ordinance. They did themselves zero favours with the City and community by their actions.

At the end, Southwest will, in my opinion, be a much better neighbour and a good match for LGB. SWA is already the biggest carrier in California and its service at LGB will fit in nicely to its route portfolio and offer travellers another airport option in the LA basin.


Yeah, B6 was far from being a good neighbor - at least in recent history. The evening flights from JFK, BOS, and FLL constantly arrive past the curfew, and given that B6 does not have a dedicated LGB-based fleet, it's hard to correct for the east coast ATC mess that B6 deals with on a nearly daily basis.

WN is, for sure, a much better match for LGB. My only question is how much any more expansion will cannibalize their rather robust SNA operations 21 miles down the 405.

tphuang wrote:
They probably always need a base in LA area due to their transcon success, but I think you will see more cuts to LGB next year among the west coast routes.

I did a comparison a while ago between yields out of ONT/BUR/LGB amongst non-B6 routes, ONT was surprisingly the highest. I think it's an underserved airport. They will find out with their new JFK-ONT route to see how good the yield is. If it looks good, maybe they can move their old LGB plan of Mexican flights to ONT. At present time, they need to be laser focused in maintaining their east coast position. If they can fend off DL at BOS and WN at FLL, they will be in a better position to grow elsewhere.


I think the JFK-ONT flight will do just fine, but it's hard to see B6 expanding much further (besides maybe a BOS flight at some point). Frankly, I think ONT is just way too far from the major LA Basin population center - especially the wealthier neighborhoods to the north, west, and south of the city - for B6 to really have anything beyond a token presence. Even if B6 did attempt to build-up ONT, it would still need to battle it out against WN, which has a clear advantage.

As you said, they need to remain laser focused on BOS and FLL (and, to a lesser extent, JFK), which still have ample growth opportunities and are very profitable. Let everyone else duke it out in California for now.

AirFiero wrote:
It depends on what point you think we’re discussing. I’m talking about a west coast presence, and west coast routes. B6 at LGB has them. Does B6 want that west coast presence or not? If LGB is dying, do they want to stay in that game or not? If not, then the whole ONT or LAX question is moot.


I think B6 is coming to terms that its West Coast presence will simply be to serve its customer base in Boston, South Florida, and New York City. B6 has a strong transcon brand from all of these markets (which is further strengthened with Mint), and sees value in serving markets that other airlines do not serve or just recently began serving (i.e. NYC/BOS-SMF/OAK/SJC/BUR, JFK-PSP/RNO/ABQ). With the recent addition of year-round daytime frequencies on JFK-BUR/DEN/SLC/SEA and the addition of JFK-ONT/BOS-BUR, I think we are seeing signs that B6 is doubling down on its transcon network while leaving the inta-West flying to those who have been there longer and can do it better (namely, WN/AS, and the legacies).

Now, if only they can boost their PDX/PHX frequencies a bit, and add Mint on EWR-LAX/SFO..... :eek:

enilria wrote:
I think both AS and B6 are resigned to the fact they will eventually merge and see no reason to spend their gold creating something that will be a money-losing anti-trust obstacle in the other's backyard. BTW, I don't want them to merge. It's bad for competition, but at this point it's inevitable. There are no partners left that make more sense and the route structure is perfect. Yes, fleet is crap. It always is in mergers. HA/NK/F9/G4 all add no real network value to create a national 5th airline catering to the usual business clientelle.


Yes. I don't want them to merge either, but ultimately it seems inevitable. And while I agree it's bad for competition, right now almost all markets they compete on has ample competition on other airlines, as they are primarily high-volume transcon flights. I think the only market they don't have competition from at least one of the Big 3 is BOS-LAS, which will change once DL enters the market. So, while consolidation does traditionally lead to higher fares, I don't think the effect will be particularly pronounced in this case since their route networks are rather complementary.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1552
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:00 pm

enilria wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
enilria wrote:
B6 has ZERO regional service from LAX and doesn't compete with WN on a single route. How do you have a focus city without any short-haul or even medium-haul flights? You don't. B6's shortest route from LAX is MCO. I'd say you made my point that B6 avoids WN in the L.A. market which means an ONT focus city is completely out of character...as I said. Still could happen, but it's a strategy change.


It depends on what point you think we’re discussing. I’m talking about a west coast presence, and west coast routes. B6 at LGB has them. Does B6 want that west coast presence or not? If LGB is dying, do they want to stay in that game or not? If not, then the whole ONT or LAX question is moot.

A West Coast presence is not flying from the West Coast to the East Coast. That's an East Coast presence because it's one piece of the puzzle to a full North America product line in FLL/BOS/NYC. In order to have that sort of product line in the West they need to fly routes less than 2,000 miles and since they are clearly avoiding head to head competition in Cali there are no options other than to change strategies and compete with WN. If they do that they will still have the same problem they had at LGB which is that they are tiny compared to WN no matter what short/intermediate haul they add. Being at the same airport like ONT as opposed to LGB which they had to themselves only makes it worse I think.


Right. Now we a having the same conversation. We should then assume that B6 doesn’t care to continue in the west coast scrum, and since the situation at LGB looks grim we shouldn’t expect them to maintain a presence in the intra-west coast markets let alone making a go of it in another market. Probably smart for B6.
 
User avatar
enilria
Topic Author
Posts: 10377
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:33 pm

AirFiero wrote:
enilria wrote:
AirFiero wrote:

It depends on what point you think we’re discussing. I’m talking about a west coast presence, and west coast routes. B6 at LGB has them. Does B6 want that west coast presence or not? If LGB is dying, do they want to stay in that game or not? If not, then the whole ONT or LAX question is moot.

A West Coast presence is not flying from the West Coast to the East Coast. That's an East Coast presence because it's one piece of the puzzle to a full North America product line in FLL/BOS/NYC. In order to have that sort of product line in the West they need to fly routes less than 2,000 miles and since they are clearly avoiding head to head competition in Cali there are no options other than to change strategies and compete with WN. If they do that they will still have the same problem they had at LGB which is that they are tiny compared to WN no matter what short/intermediate haul they add. Being at the same airport like ONT as opposed to LGB which they had to themselves only makes it worse I think.


Right. Now we a having the same conversation. We should then assume that B6 doesn’t care to continue in the west coast scrum, and since the situation at LGB looks grim we shouldn’t expect them to maintain a presence in the intra-west coast markets let alone making a go of it in another market. Probably smart for B6.

Yes, I agree. They COULD do ONT as a focus city, but it likely will perform as badly as LGB. So, why would they change strategies and go after WN in Cali?
 
ScottB
Posts: 7191
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:11 pm

enilria wrote:
Yes, I agree. They COULD do ONT as a focus city, but it likely will perform as badly as LGB. So, why would they change strategies and go after WN in Cali?


Honestly I think ONT would be even worse as a focus city because WN would obviously respond and they have the multiple advantages of schedule, brand recognition, passenger loyalty both in ONT and at the likely spokes, and customer-friendly policies like complimentary bags and no change fees. WN currently gets decent yields out of ONT as the monopoly carrier to OAK/SJC/SMF/LAS, but the yields WN gets for ONT-OAK/SJC are actually lower than what B6 gets in competitive East Coast markets of similar length like BOS-DCA/IAD. They could offer international flights at ONT but the international-to-domestic connecting experience at ONT is poor.

And the ONT market is a bad fit for a carrier positioning itself somewhere between LCC and legacy.
 
User avatar
klm617
Posts: 5406
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:44 am

I find it very interesting that Delta is giving up on the premium traffic out of CAK and just going after the low end Florida markets. By eliminating DTW-CAK Delta flyers no longer have one stop options east and west of CAK they only have access to Delta's southern destinations mainly low fare Florida traffic. If I am traveling on business out of CAK to get to the west, northwest, and east I am surely not driving to CLE to catch a Delta one stop flight I'm going to hop on AA or UA in CAK and get to my destination with one stop.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
marvinanderson1
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:39 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:03 am

Excellent point. Now if Delta adds service from CAK-MSP, then that somewhat changes the equation. That would be more of an advantage than CAK-DTW.
 
marvinanderson1
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:39 pm

Re: OAG Changes 8/12/2018: DL Drops CAK-DTW;CZ Adds LAX-SHE;UA Back in IAH-MZT;WN Builds LGB;F9 Extension

Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:04 am

Excellent point. Now if Delta adds service from CAK-MSP, then that somewhat changes the equation. That would be more of an advantage than CAK-DTW.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AAKiddo, AC4500, airlineaddict, ba319-131, Baidu [Spider], cylw, freshwater, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], hoons90, jacobin777, jodie, jumpseat67, PM, rida79, RL777, roadpilot, Ruscoe, SkyVoice, UAUA, Westerwaelder, WorldTraveler18, zkncj and 201 guests

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