What many do not realize is that in order for the addition of a flight line to be viable there are many factors other than "it would be nice to see this addition", or a particular airline has "every market covered except this one". Some markets are viable but have constraints on gate space at intervals where its not feasible to set down at that time, and because of this an upper end fare factor cannot be realized from the business community. Many airports do not have overnight parking available to afford an early departure for the outbound business catchment, or availability is late morning curtailing many business customers from choosing the flight. A model that produces a 90% plus load factor inbound and a 31% outbound doesn't meet muster when considering the city for service. While ;this is not always the case it is one of the many factors that are considered before any market is added. Commitments from the business community / planning working with marketing will determine this in many instances.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Well I'd argue that SLC seems to have been given that consideration, but I know there's more to it than that.

Salt Lake had/has a large MP presence? That’s interesting since they were the last large Western city to get Alaska service. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding the reply. Everything into SLC is from places with decent Alaska presence. I’ve heard the one Boise flight is pretty much always empty, but I wonder if it is a Skywest thing or there’s enough walk up fares or business travelers as it has stuck around for awhile now.

maximairways wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

EMB170 wrote:

Aren't they starting SEA-CMH this fall?

This is an older thread. That poster made that comment well before SEA-CMH was announced. Clearly he got his wish.

I'm also a little surprised that SEA-COS hasn't come back yet. Seems like a good market for an E-175.

I can't imagine AS starting SEA-BUF. That doesn't seem like a big enough market.

Will be interesting to see what comes next.

Based on the BTS DbMarket BUF-SEA had the following PDEW in 2017:

Q1: 27
Q2: 55
Q3: 78
Q4: 41

It seems like atleast a summer seasonal would work.

It could definitely work ..... I believe AS flies to San Francisco? Buffalo / the NFTA has been wanting an air carrier to start service to that airport too.

Also need to take into consideration if Canadians fly the route very often, to attract them to fly BNIA to Seattle / SF.

maximairways wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

RL757PVD wrote:

BDL would have AS already if LAX and SFO were accounted for, BDL-SEA certainly seems ripe in the 5 year window especially given aerospace ties (heck CHS has it).

PVD-LAX/SFO is ripe from the perspective that they arent a big player and PVD hemorrhages pax to BOS for west coast flying, I could see each 1x daily for May-October then shared (4x/3x) for Nov-April.

As much as I’d like to see some of the wish list routes mentioned, remember that LAX has only had BDL on and off. JAX and PBI couldn’t support LAX non-stops. I’m dubious that SEA could support any of the three or BUF.

BDL and BUF each sustain a LAX flight now. With BUF's being essentially a pure O&D route. (jetBlue really doesnt have connections on either end)

CLE has 2x daily LAX/SFO on UA post-hub. Seasonal to SAN/PDX/SEA on F9. Assuming no incentives are in play, why BUF/BDL over CLE?

LAXBUR wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Well I'd argue that SLC seems to have been given that consideration, but I know there's more to it than that.

Salt Lake had/has a large MP presence? That’s interesting since they were the last large Western city to get Alaska service. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding the reply. Everything into SLC is from places with decent Alaska presence. I’ve heard the one Boise flight is pretty much always empty, but I wonder if it is a Skywest thing or there’s enough walk up fares or business travelers as it has stuck around for awhile now.

I was more speaking to it being a spoke city but with service to a variety of destinations. If SLC can support that, I’d think PHX could as well, but again, there are probably other motivations at play.

Given the AA partnership, I doubt AS is heading into PHX.

crescent wrote:

Given the AA partnership, I doubt AS is heading into PHX.

I wonder about that too. But I noticed AA/AS don't codeshare on SFO/LAX-PHX routes. So maybe.

LAXBUR wrote:

crescent wrote:

Given the AA partnership, I doubt AS is heading into PHX.

I wonder about that too. But I noticed AA/AS don't codeshare on SFO/LAX-PHX routes. So maybe.

AA and AS cannot codeshare on hub-to-hub routes.

FAT-SNA. Fresno is lobbying AS to start the route and there's incentives. FAT-SAN has grown over the years to 3X day. SNA was always a strong O&D market when there were flights. As they're also adding a 2nd FAT-PDX and could add a 4th SEA if they don't upgrade to a 737 or 320, a SNA-FAT-PDX or SNA-FAT-SEA could make sense.

There's also the ongoing talk of FAT to someplace in Hawaii and as FAT is investing in a gate remodel for AS, giving them a "new look" holding area at 6 & 8, including a jetway designed for 737-900's and 320's, so you'd think something is pending.

jbs2886 wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

crescent wrote:

Given the AA partnership, I doubt AS is heading into PHX.

I wonder about that too. But I noticed AA/AS don't codeshare on SFO/LAX-PHX routes. So maybe.

AA and AS cannot codeshare on hub-to-hub routes.

Plus how do you explain AS flights to DAL, DFW, ORD, PHL, LAX, etc. In the end, they won't hold back if they think their FF's want it or if it secures more revenue for AS. That's why AA now flies LAXSEA.

whatusaid wrote:

FAT-SNA. Fresno is lobbying AS to start the route and there's incentives. FAT-SAN has grown over the years to 3X day. SNA was always a strong O&D market when there were flights. As they're also adding a 2nd FAT-PDX and could add a 4th SEA if they don't upgrade to a 737 or 320, a SNA-FAT-PDX or SNA-FAT-SEA could make sense.

There's also the ongoing talk of FAT to someplace in Hawaii and as FAT is investing in a gate remodel for AS, giving them a "new look" holding area at 6 & 8, including a jetway designed for 737-900's and 320's, so you'd think something is pending.

That'd all be great.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

I wonder about that too. But I noticed AA/AS don't codeshare on SFO/LAX-PHX routes. So maybe.

AA and AS cannot codeshare on hub-to-hub routes.

Plus how do you explain AS flights to DAL, DFW, ORD, PHL, LAX, etc. In the end, they won't hold back if they think their FF's want it or if it secures more revenue for AS. That's why AA now flies LAXSEA.

whatusaid wrote:

FAT-SNA. Fresno is lobbying AS to start the route and there's incentives. FAT-SAN has grown over the years to 3X day. SNA was always a strong O&D market when there were flights. As they're also adding a 2nd FAT-PDX and could add a 4th SEA if they don't upgrade to a 737 or 320, a SNA-FAT-PDX or SNA-FAT-SEA could make sense.

There's also the ongoing talk of FAT to someplace in Hawaii and as FAT is investing in a gate remodel for AS, giving them a "new look" holding area at 6 & 8, including a jetway designed for 737-900's and 320's, so you'd think something is pending.

That'd all be great.

I would say if AS can sustain 737 service on the SEA-SBA and SEA-RDM routes, I'm sure SEA-FAT could handle a 737/A3XX flight provided that it's strategically scheduled. I think it's just a matter of time.

I think SNA-FAT would be a popular route, especially for an E-175. I remember WestAir, Apollo Airways and Far West Airlines trying FAT as a hub.

Filler....

Unlikely but wishful for E175 service to LIT or XNA.

USAavdork wrote:

id love to see a build up of PHX to SAN/LAX/SFO/SMF/SJC... it's a hole in their west coast flying and heavily traveled route both for leisure and business. I know AA/WN are heavy there but Alaska could make it work!

Ever since AS announced their California focus a couple of years ago, PHX had to be on the list to happen when possible. Some people here -- and they know who they are! -- seem to think LAX and SFO are the givens while other CA cities are "maybes" or "eventuallies". I agree with 'avdork's list and feel that SFO/SJC/LAX/SAN are all sure bets, and SMF (plus I would add SNA -- probability of that route due mainly to availability of slots at John Wayne) are highly likely. I will even throw FAT-PHX in as a possibility.

There's certainly plenty of capacity on almost all of those routes already, between AA and WN, but I think the AAG Frequent Flyers in the CA cities, as well as in PHX, WANT to be able to fly on Alaska! And there should be plenty of O&D traffic on all of those routes to support some level of service on AS.

I also feel there are a few holes in the LAS market from CA -- the two focus cities of SJC and SAN definitely should see LAS service, and again, perhaps SMF, SNA and FAT. (Of course, SFO and LA already see flights to LAS.)

bb

SFO-PHX did well? Let's pump the brakes a little bit. This is from Q1

CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF AvgAsm PRASM
SFOPHX 651 AA 103191 175.88 175.56 230.98 99.42% 174.3 67.19% 117.96 0.1812
SFOPHX 651 AS 18872 118.73 118.77 104.97 99.67% 177.4 70.47% 83.70 0.1286
SFOPHX 651 OO 9972 204.22 203.53 210.71 90.49% 76.00 83.57% 170.1 0.2613
SFOPHX 651 UA 80340 187.16 186.61 252.52 99.17% 159.4 73.69% 137.51 0.2112
SFOPHX 651 WN 75081 155.01 154.19 172.41 95.50% 148.5 69.25% 106.78 0.164

Having average fare of $118 with 70% LF is not good at all.

whatusaid wrote:

FAT-SNA. Fresno is lobbying AS to start the route and there's incentives. FAT-SAN has grown over the years to 3X day. SNA was always a strong O&D market when there were flights. As they're also adding a 2nd FAT-PDX and could add a 4th SEA if they don't upgrade to a 737 or 320, a SNA-FAT-PDX or SNA-FAT-SEA could make sense.

There's also the ongoing talk of FAT to someplace in Hawaii and as FAT is investing in a gate remodel for AS, giving them a "new look" holding area at 6 & 8, including a jetway designed for 737-900's and 320's, so you'd think something is pending.

I would think SNA would already be happening if not for the slot issues there, as AS is faced with an even higher "opportunity cost" when deciding to add a new route than they would in many other airports. There is definitely a big demand for it, although I have also heard of people flying to SAN and driving up to southern Orange County, so while it seems unlikely, I wonder if it would cannibalize SAN at all?

HNL would also be great, but it would likely not operate daily (and definitely not at first, although it could always develop into that if it's successful enough), so it would be necessary to see better connections on days when it does not operate. With the schedules right now, going over to HNL is easy enough, but there is only one really acceptable option on AS coming back on many days, and it involves a 2:45 layover in SEA. To fix this, it would be great to see the HNL-SAN and/or SAN-FAT flight re-timed to allow connections there.

SANFan wrote:

I also feel there are a few holes in the LAS market from CA -- the two focus cities of SJC and SAN definitely should see LAS service, and again, perhaps SMF, SNA and FAT. (Of course, SFO and LA already see flights to LAS.)
bb

People in FAT would be excited to see another option to LAS with Allegiant's terrible on-time performance. That route used to have three airlines on it, and peaked at over 85K pax per year (it bottomed out at around 40k after both UA and HP/US pulled out of it, and has since risen back to around 60K). There is definitely room for an additional E175 on it, especially with something like X23, operating as an evening turn every day except Saturday, when it would likely operate in the mid-morning.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I’m waiting for PHX-California. Holding my breath for that one. How about SFO/LAX/SAN-PHX?

SFOPHX is returning with 2X daily service for Spring Training using A320 equipment; it's only scheduled for about 5-6 weeks, similar to last year, but it performed really well last year and looks to do the same this time around as well. At some point it will go year-round; it's just a matter of time.

To me, PHX-Cali is an odd omission in their network. If we could turn back time, AS+HP might have been interesting.

Doesn’t AS fly SJC-TUS? Are there any other California cities with flights to TUS? It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to add PHX to California.

tphuang wrote:

SFO-PHX did well? Let's pump the brakes a little bit. This is from Q1

CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF AvgAsm PRASM
SFOPHX 651 AA 103191 175.88 175.56 230.98 99.42% 174.3 67.19% 117.96 0.1812
SFOPHX 651 AS 18872 118.73 118.77 104.97 99.67% 177.4 70.47% 83.70 0.1286
SFOPHX 651 OO 9972 204.22 203.53 210.71 90.49% 76.00 83.57% 170.1 0.2613
SFOPHX 651 UA 80340 187.16 186.61 252.52 99.17% 159.4 73.69% 137.51 0.2112
SFOPHX 651 WN 75081 155.01 154.19 172.41 95.50% 148.5 69.25% 106.78 0.164

Having average fare of $118 with 70% LF is not good at all.

I suppose it depends on expectations. Throwing a couple of daily flights onto a route for 5 or 6 weeks might not get you great numbers but it might get you better numbers than expected. Having said that, I’m sure they didn’t do it expecting low numbers.

AirFiero wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

SFOPHX is returning with 2X daily service for Spring Training using A320 equipment; it's only scheduled for about 5-6 weeks, similar to last year, but it performed really well last year and looks to do the same this time around as well. At some point it will go year-round; it's just a matter of time.

To me, PHX-Cali is an odd omission in their network. If we could turn back time, AS+HP might have been interesting.

Doesn’t AS fly SJC-TUS? Are there any other California cities with flights to TUS? It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to add PHX to California.

That’s always been an interesting route. I flew it years ago on QX - wonder why it sticks around?

PlanesNTrains wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

To me, PHX-Cali is an odd omission in their network. If we could turn back time, AS+HP might have been interesting.

Doesn’t AS fly SJC-TUS? Are there any other California cities with flights to TUS? It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to add PHX to California.

That’s always been an interesting route. I flew it years ago on QX - wonder why it sticks around?

Tech business?

AirFiero wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Doesn’t AS fly SJC-TUS? Are there any other California cities with flights to TUS? It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to add PHX to California.

That’s always been an interesting route. I flew it years ago on QX - wonder why it sticks around?

Tech business?

Perhaps. No idea. Does OO have a maintenance base at TUS?

Edit: Yes. http://www.skywest.com/about-skywest-airlines/facts/

WN isn’t on SJC-TUS. Lots of people retire in TUS and there are plenty of golf and resorts there. Horizon used to serve this route so not sure how much Skywest has to do with it.

LAXBUR wrote:

WN isn’t on SJC-TUS. Lots of people retire in TUS and there are plenty of golf and resorts there. Horizon used to serve this route so not sure how much Skywest has to do with it.

I only mentioned it because I think OO currently flies it. I’m sure there are market reasons for the flight, possibly as simple as ‘we’ve flown it for a long time and WN doesn’t so...’

AS has 2 unused slots at SNA currently.
Possibly once PAE opens the aircraft can be used to add PAE and FAT.
FAT-SNA-PAE-SNA-FAT.

Flyguy

I agree FAT is under served. Always thought there could be some opportunities to connect it to the bay area besides UA's chronically delayed SFO service. LAS, HNL, maybe SJC for additional connection opportunities all seem like possibilities. It looks like AA doesn't actually codeshare with AS on FAT-PHX so that wouldn't be too surprising an add either should AS launch California-PHX.

Yes, OO does have a mx base in TUS and that's prolly the main reason for the SJC connection. Look at the timing of the flights as supporting evidence:
SJC - 6:57pm OO3304 Dly EMJ
TUS - 8:55 pm

TUS - 8:25 am OO3303 Dly EMJ
SJC - 10:48 am

When the route started about a year ago, 8/28/17, it was stated that the reason was to get that EMJ in for maintenance overnight.

bb

SANFan wrote:

Yes, OO does have a mx base in TUS and that's prolly the main reason for the SJC connection. Look at the timing of the flights as supporting evidence:
SJC - 6:57pm OO3304 Dly EMJ
TUS - 8:55 pm

TUS - 8:25 am OO3303 Dly EMJ
SJC - 10:48 am

When the route started about a year ago, 8/28/17, it was stated that the reason was to get that EMJ in for maintenance overnight.

bb

Just curious who stated that? Not being argumentative. But that surely wasn’t in a press release.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

tphuang wrote:

SFO-PHX did well? Let's pump the brakes a little bit. This is from Q1

CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF AvgAsm PRASM
SFOPHX 651 AA 103191 175.88 175.56 230.98 99.42% 174.3 67.19% 117.96 0.1812
SFOPHX 651 AS 18872 118.73 118.77 104.97 99.67% 177.4 70.47% 83.70 0.1286
SFOPHX 651 OO 9972 204.22 203.53 210.71 90.49% 76.00 83.57% 170.1 0.2613
SFOPHX 651 UA 80340 187.16 186.61 252.52 99.17% 159.4 73.69% 137.51 0.2112
SFOPHX 651 WN 75081 155.01 154.19 172.41 95.50% 148.5 69.25% 106.78 0.164

Having average fare of $118 with 70% LF is not good at all.

I suppose it depends on expectations. Throwing a couple of daily flights onto a route for 5 or 6 weeks might not get you great numbers but it might get you better numbers than expected. Having said that, I’m sure they didn’t do it expecting low numbers.

Yes a 6 week trial isn't going to tell you a whole lot definitively, but obviously if it were that attractive of a route, it would have been added a while ago, when AS was throwing as many darts as they could at the route board out of SFO. That it hasn't been added, and that they continue to do spring training-only service, tells you their expectations for the route are below even the very low bar they have for connecting dots out of SFO.

iflykpdx wrote:

I agree FAT is under served. Always thought there could be some opportunities to connect it to the bay area besides UA's chronically delayed SFO service. LAS, HNL, maybe SJC for additional connection opportunities all seem like possibilities. It looks like AA doesn't actually codeshare with AS on FAT-PHX so that wouldn't be too surprising an add either should AS launch California-PHX.

Problem with SJC/SFO from FAT is there would be almost zero O&D. Even with Bay Area traffic, you don’t save much time flying and save a lot of money driving. People definitely do it (for example, someone from Chicago who has a meeting in Fresno Monday and then San Francisco Tuesday might), but not to the level that would warrant multiple airlines doing it, IMHO.

ucdtim17 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

tphuang wrote:

SFO-PHX did well? Let's pump the brakes a little bit. This is from Q1

CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF AvgAsm PRASM
SFOPHX 651 AA 103191 175.88 175.56 230.98 99.42% 174.3 67.19% 117.96 0.1812
SFOPHX 651 AS 18872 118.73 118.77 104.97 99.67% 177.4 70.47% 83.70 0.1286
SFOPHX 651 OO 9972 204.22 203.53 210.71 90.49% 76.00 83.57% 170.1 0.2613
SFOPHX 651 UA 80340 187.16 186.61 252.52 99.17% 159.4 73.69% 137.51 0.2112
SFOPHX 651 WN 75081 155.01 154.19 172.41 95.50% 148.5 69.25% 106.78 0.164

Having average fare of $118 with 70% LF is not good at all.

I suppose it depends on expectations. Throwing a couple of daily flights onto a route for 5 or 6 weeks might not get you great numbers but it might get you better numbers than expected. Having said that, I’m sure they didn’t do it expecting low numbers.

Yes a 6 week trial isn't going to tell you a whole lot definitively, but obviously if it were that attractive of a route, it would have been added a while ago, when AS was throwing as many darts as they could at the route board out of SFO. That it hasn't been added, and that they continue to do spring training-only service, tells you their expectations for the route are below even the very low bar they have for connecting dots out of SFO.

1. Of course.
2. Theoretically, every route not flown must then have such low expectations that it’s never been added.
3. AA flies it to their hub which, regardless of where their partnership is at, will split their base.
4. I don’t think they’ve tried all that many routes out of SFO, their track record notwithstanding.
5. PHX has a strong AS base that could support additional service.

Back on the issue of AS in PHX, we're talking about an expansion of PHX to cities that are not primary for AS like in California. AS does fly to other AA hubs like PHL DFW LAX ORD but largely only to the two home hubs of SEA & PDX. AA also probably doesn't care about TUS. I don't think if AS started flying PHX to SJC SMF OAK RNO, etc. that it would be met passively by AA.

crescent wrote:

Back on the issue of AS in PHX, we're talking about an expansion of PHX to cities that are not primary for AS like in California. AS does fly to other AA hubs like PHL DFW LAX ORD but largely only to the two home hubs of SEA & PDX. AA also probably doesn't care about TUS. I don't think if AS started flying PHX to SJC SMF OAK RNO, etc. that it would be met passively by AA.

Enilria’s rule (of sorts) has been that as long as it’s from your hub (I.e. SFO) then the retaliation would be limited. SMF etc would be a different story. So at a minimum I’d think SFO is ok, and possibly SJC.

flyfresno wrote:

Problem with SJC/SFO from FAT is there would be almost zero O&D. Even with Bay Area traffic, you don’t save much time flying and save a lot of money driving. People definitely do it (for example, someone from Chicago who has a meeting in Fresno Monday and then San Francisco Tuesday might), but not to the level that would warrant multiple airlines doing it, IMHO.

I agree that O&D would not be high, but considering how many people must miss connections and require rerouting due to SFO delays I wouldn't be surprised if more people would prefer to connect through a different city. Granted, UA has a much larger network out of SFO and the ability to rebook people when needed. It would be a gamble, but I think for people who are loyal to AS, having a very close connection point would be welcome for flights to Hawaii and points east over having to go all the way to SEA/PDX and SAN to an extent.

iflykpdx wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Problem with SJC/SFO from FAT is there would be almost zero O&D. Even with Bay Area traffic, you don’t save much time flying and save a lot of money driving. People definitely do it (for example, someone from Chicago who has a meeting in Fresno Monday and then San Francisco Tuesday might), but not to the level that would warrant multiple airlines doing it, IMHO.

I agree that O&D would not be high, but considering how many people must miss connections and require rerouting due to SFO delays I wouldn't be surprised if more people would prefer to connect through a different city. Granted, UA has a much larger network out of SFO and the ability to rebook people when needed. It would be a gamble, but I think for people who are loyal to AS, having a very close connection point would be welcome for flights to Hawaii and points east over having to go all the way to SEA/PDX and SAN to an extent.

The interesting thing about SFO (at least in relation to FAT) is that UA has been increasing the number of seats rather than adding them to a less congested hub like DEN. I would imagine that an early FAT-DEN 737 would offer the same (and maybe better) connecting options than the early 737 they have been running to SFO. Granted, aircraft routing plays a big part in the SFO choice, and OO’s mx base in FAT likely also plays a part, but I would think most people leaving FAT at 6am would rather connect in DEN than SFO, especially if there is still 1-2 CRJs to SFO to cover Hawaii, Asia, and the PNW.

LAXBUR wrote:

SANFan wrote:

When the route [TUS-SJC] started about a year ago, 8/28/17, it was stated that the reason was to get that EMJ in for maintenance overnight.
bb

Just curious who stated that? Not being argumentative. But that surely wasn’t in a press release.

Oh I have no idea but no, it was certainly nothing 'official'. Things like that are usually, AFAIK, not officially announced.

There's also the matter just finding a place to park planes overnight, mx or not. From posts I've seen on A.net from a very reliable source -- and he knows who he it! -- AAG is just about out of RON parking at SJC, just as I know they are in SAN (and probably SEA and many other airports as well.)

In fact, I'd love to see an EMJ flown nightly from SAN over to TUS every night as well, for the same reasons, as well as to enter the market (another existing WN monopoly.) Although SAN-TUS is not a huge market, it is one that now sees daily-double 737s on WN and, IMO, could handle at least a single daily r/t EMJ on AS. It's a 368 mile nonstop air journey but the alternative is a 400+ mile, 7 hour drive on I-8 thru nothing but nothing (aka desert!) There is definitely year-round traffic between the 2 cities and with AS's routé structure out of SAN, ! can imagine a fair number of connecting pax from TUS could find destinations to travel to thru SAN - just as they do on WN.

bb

SANFan wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

SANFan wrote:

When the route [TUS-SJC] started about a year ago, 8/28/17, it was stated that the reason was to get that EMJ in for maintenance overnight.
bb

Just curious who stated that? Not being argumentative. But that surely wasn’t in a press release.

Oh I have no idea but no, it was certainly nothing 'official'. Things like that are usually, AFAIK, not officially announced.

There's also the matter just finding a place to park planes overnight, mx or not. From posts I've seen on A.net from a very reliable source -- and he knows who he it! -- AAG is just about out of RON parking at SJC, just as I know they are in SAN (and probably SEA and many other airports as well.)

In fact, I'd love to see an EMJ flown nightly from SAN over to TUS every night as well, for the same reasons, as well as to enter the market (another existing WN monopoly.) Although SAN-TUS is not a huge market, it is one that now sees daily-double 737s on WN and, IMO, could handle at least a single daily r/t EMJ on AS. It's a 368 mile nonstop air journey but the alternative is a 400+ mile, 7 hour drive on I-8 thru nothing but nothing (aka desert!) There is definitely year-round traffic between the 2 cities and with AS's routé structure out of SAN, ! can imagine a fair number of connecting pax from TUS could find destinations to travel to thru SAN - just as they do on WN.

bb

I think SANTUS could be doable as you mentioned, and for the reasons you mentioned. While not as direct, they could flow some connections over SAN as well.

While I am personally biased towards FAT, I still see great potential for AS here, especially with the OO mx and crew base (although FAT has historically been a CRJ-only crew base), and as mentioned, the current renovations of gate 6 and 8 to accommodate B737s/A320s. Some thoughts:

1. I second the sentiment in that I would also love to see a Hawaii flight out of FAT. Most of us remember G4 starting and ending the route a few years ago, but I have head the flight consistently went out pretty full, and most of the difficulty came on G4's inexperience in operating Hawaii flights with ancient 757's. I'm sure that other A.net users can provide some clarity on this but that is what I have been led to believe. I can see AS starting a SEA-FAT-HNL routing with a 738 similar to their SEA-SMF-OGG 1-stop routing currently operating. Timing is always the biggest factor but I am certain there is enough demand for a 3-4x weekly service.

2. FAT-SNA and FAT-LAS have been discussed here already and I'll echo on those routings. E175s would be perfect for these routes. Both routes have been served by multiple carriers in the past and there are many people who swear off the current G4 LAS flight due horrible reliability and G4's reputation. AS has already built credability around the Central Valley in part due to their "affordable" fares ( when compared to UA, AA, and DL out of FAT).

3. I don't see a route like FAT-PHX working for AS. AA already has a strong hold on the route with their hub and there is no need for AS to try to compete when the equipment can be better utilized. Same with FAT- SFO/OAK. SJC is also too close of a drive (2 hours in good traffic) to really warrant a flight.

In reality, this is all wishful thinking, but as FAT continues to rise in popularity (in record numbers at least for 2018 so far), I can see AS making some plays once AS/VX are completely integrated and operations are figured out. Until then, I'm glad to see the additions of more SAN/SEA/PDX flights.

I’d think FAT-SEA/PDX/SAN/SNA/LAS/Hawaii could work for them. Not sure what else would make sense.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I’d think FAT-SEA/PDX/SAN/SNA/LAS/Hawaii could work for them. Not sure what else would make sense.

FAT-DAL...?

Kidding, of course...

crescent wrote:

Back on the issue of AS in PHX, we're talking about an expansion of PHX to cities that are not primary for AS like in California. AS does fly to other AA hubs like PHL DFW LAX ORD but largely only to the two home hubs of SEA & PDX. AA also probably doesn't care about TUS. I don't think if AS started flying PHX to SJC SMF OAK RNO, etc. that it would be met passively by AA.

AS has bookable codeshares on AA routes from PHX to SJC, SNA, SAN, SMF, GEG and SLC. You can book these as stand alone flights without an accompanying AS segment.

I doubt they’ll add PHX-SJC. SFO makes more sense, but you never know. It’d be a much nicer way to get to Hawaii than going through SAN/LAX on WN/AS.

SANFan wrote:

Although SAN-TUS is not a huge market, it is one that now sees daily-double 737s on WN and, IMO, could handle at least a single daily r/t EMJ on AS.

WN has flown it as many as 4x/day. They started pulling frequencies when they reduced the number of small markets they flew to. It’s been two flights a day for a while now.

LAXBUR wrote:

WN isn’t on SJC-TUS. Lots of people retire in TUS and there are plenty of golf and resorts there. Horizon used to serve this route so not sure how much Skywest has to do with it.

WN is on TUS-OAK, and will be moving to SJC-TUS this fall or winter, I believe.

EA CO AS wrote:

SFOPHX is returning with 2X daily service for Spring Training using A320 equipment; it's only scheduled for about 5-6 weeks, similar to last year, but it performed really well last year and looks to do the same this time around as well. At some point it will go year-round; it's just a matter of time.

I’ll believe it when I see it. But nice to see the A320s here.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

That’s always been an interesting route. I flew it years ago on QX - wonder why it sticks around?

QX flew TUS-SJC and TUS-SFO a number of years ago. Probably back in 2002-04. It was dropped, along with TUS-PDX and the second TUS-SEA flight. For almost 10 years, TUS had one flight a day on AS and occasionally saw a second flight. It wasn’t until Delta started flying TUS-SEA that AS added a second frequency and added SJC and PDX (x2 this year).

chrisair wrote:

crescent wrote:

Back on the issue of AS in PHX, we're talking about an expansion of PHX to cities that are not primary for AS like in California. AS does fly to other AA hubs like PHL DFW LAX ORD but largely only to the two home hubs of SEA & PDX. AA also probably doesn't care about TUS. I don't think if AS started flying PHX to SJC SMF OAK RNO, etc. that it would be met passively by AA.

AS has bookable codeshares on AA routes from PHX to SJC, SNA, SAN, SMF, GEG and SLC. You can book these as stand alone flights without an accompanying AS segment.

I doubt they’ll add PHX-SJC. SFO makes more sense, but you never know. It’d be a much nicer way to get to Hawaii than going through SAN/LAX on WN/AS.

SANFan wrote:

Although SAN-TUS is not a huge market, it is one that now sees daily-double 737s on WN and, IMO, could handle at least a single daily r/t EMJ on AS.

WN has flown it as many as 4x/day. They started pulling frequencies when they reduced the number of small markets they flew to. It’s been two flights a day for a while now.

LAXBUR wrote:

WN isn’t on SJC-TUS. Lots of people retire in TUS and there are plenty of golf and resorts there. Horizon used to serve this route so not sure how much Skywest has to do with it.

WN is on TUS-OAK, and will be moving to SJC-TUS this fall or winter, I believe.

EA CO AS wrote:

SFOPHX is returning with 2X daily service for Spring Training using A320 equipment; it's only scheduled for about 5-6 weeks, similar to last year, but it performed really well last year and looks to do the same this time around as well. At some point it will go year-round; it's just a matter of time.

I’ll believe it when I see it. But nice to see the A320s here.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

That’s always been an interesting route. I flew it years ago on QX - wonder why it sticks around?

QX flew TUS-SJC and TUS-SFO a number of years ago. Probably back in 2002-04. It was dropped, along with TUS-PDX and the second TUS-SEA flight. For almost 10 years, TUS had one flight a day on AS and occasionally saw a second flight. It wasn’t until Delta started flying TUS-SEA that AS added a second frequency and added SJC and PDX (x2 this year).

All great info - thanks.

As an alternative or interim solution to the FAT-HI service desire, I've discussed with some folks on A.net thru PMs of the near-term possibility of a FAT-SAN-HI routing. The current skeds between SAN-FAT, plus SAN-OGG/HNL, could be slightly adjusted to make up the following flights:

FAT 7:30am 738 Dly flt #895
SAN 8:45am
SAN 10:15am
HNL 2:40pm

HNL 12:45pm 738 Dly flt #892
SAN 8:20pm
SAN 9:10pm
FAT 10:25pm

In addition to direct FAT-HNL service, it would also eliminate an RON at SAN (as discussed earlier) -- let that 738 spend the night in Fresno instead.

(Of course if AS wanted to op a nonstop FAT-HNL, the above scenario could very well be used for OGG, LIH or KOA.to complement the service.)

bb

routeplanner wrote:

What many do not realize is that in order for the addition of a flight line to be viable there are many factors other than "it would be nice to see this addition", or a particular airline has "every market covered except this one". Some markets are viable but have constraints on gate space at intervals where its not feasible to set down at that time, and because of this an upper end fare factor cannot be realized from the business community. Many airports do not have overnight parking available to afford an early departure for the outbound business catchment, or availability is late morning curtailing many business customers from choosing the flight. A model that produces a 90% plus load factor inbound and a 31% outbound doesn't meet muster when considering the city for service. While ;this is not always the case it is one of the many factors that are considered before any market is added. Commitments from the business community / planning working with marketing will determine this in many instances.

I do know that in SLC there are gate constraints on AS. I also know that because of the construction it has kept Spirit out, and the gate situation will become worse in the next few months as the airport infrastructure is worked over to accommodate the new gates and terminal. DL refuses to work with anyone in SLC for gate share.

SANFan wrote:

As an alternative or interim solution to the FAT-HI service desire, I've discussed with some folks on A.net thru PMs of the near-term possibility of a FAT-SAN-HI routing. The current skeds between SAN-FAT, plus SAN-OGG/HNL, could be slightly adjusted to make up the following flights:

FAT 7:30am 738 Dly flt #895
SAN 8:45am
SAN 10:15am
HNL 2:40pm

HNL 12:45pm 738 Dly flt #892
SAN 8:20pm
SAN 9:10pm
FAT 10:25pm

In addition to direct FAT-HNL service, it would also eliminate an RON at SAN (as discussed earlier) -- let that 738 spend the night in Fresno instead.

(Of course if AS wanted to op a nonstop FAT-HNL, the above scenario could very well be used for OGG, LIH or KOA.to complement the service.)

bb

This would be great, if true. I can't see FAT-HNL working more than twice per week outside of the peak of the peak seasons (perhaps it could develop into near-daily if AS could market it well enough to expand the catchment area to include cities like Bakersfield, Merced/Modesto, and Paso Robles/San Luis Obispo), but something like this would probably do well, perhaps even supplemented with a non-stop on the weekends to allow both FAT and SAN an entire aircraft. As you mentioned, a FAT-SAN-HNL-SAN-FAT routing would be even better if it connected to, at a minimum, OGG as well. We'll see...

SkyWest has 4 aircraft ruffly flying DAL-DCA/LGA... those routes end soon. So that will shift 4 aircraft basically west. So they will have access to add flights somewhere... we should know soon..

tphuang wrote:

SFO-PHX did well? Let's pump the brakes a little bit. This is from Q1

CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF AvgAsm PRASM
SFOPHX 651 AA 103191 175.88 175.56 230.98 99.42% 174.3 67.19% 117.96 0.1812
SFOPHX 651 AS 18872 118.73 118.77 104.97 99.67% 177.4 70.47% 83.70 0.1286
SFOPHX 651 OO 9972 204.22 203.53 210.71 90.49% 76.00 83.57% 170.1 0.2613
SFOPHX 651 UA 80340 187.16 186.61 252.52 99.17% 159.4 73.69% 137.51 0.2112
SFOPHX 651 WN 75081 155.01 154.19 172.41 95.50% 148.5 69.25% 106.78 0.164

Having average fare of $118 with 70% LF is not good at all.

Now imagine it's not just a six-week run, and it gets actively promoted by the airline. Changes things a bit, especially considering the load factor outpaced WN and AA, with a higher seat count for AS. Trust me, SFOPHX outperformed expectations considerably.

amcnd wrote:

SkyWest has 4 aircraft ruffly flying DAL-DCA/LGA... those routes end soon. So that will shift 4 aircraft basically west. So they will have access to add flights somewhere... we should know soon..

Do we know when these flights end and what they’re doing with the slots?

dbo861 wrote:

amcnd wrote:

SkyWest has 4 aircraft ruffly flying DAL-DCA/LGA... those routes end soon. So that will shift 4 aircraft basically west. So they will have access to add flights somewhere... we should know soon..

Do we know when these flights end and what they’re doing with the slots?

I believe they sold the slots to WN (or leased). I think the flights end in the next 60 days or so - can’t remember.

bd777 wrote:

While I am personally biased towards FAT, I still see great potential for AS here, especially with the OO mx and crew base (although FAT has historically been a CRJ-only crew base), and as mentioned, the current renovations of gate 6 and 8 to accommodate B737s/A320s. Some thoughts:

1. I second the sentiment in that I would also love to see a Hawaii flight out of FAT. Most of us remember G4 starting and ending the route a few years ago, but I have head the flight consistently went out pretty full, and most of the difficulty came on G4's inexperience in operating Hawaii flights with ancient 757's. I'm sure that other A.net users can provide some clarity on this but that is what I have been led to believe. I can see AS starting a SEA-FAT-HNL routing with a 738 similar to their SEA-SMF-OGG 1-stop routing currently operating. Timing is always the biggest factor but I am certain there is enough demand for a 3-4x weekly service.

2. FAT-SNA and FAT-LAS have been discussed here already and I'll echo on those routings. E175s would be perfect for these routes. Both routes have been served by multiple carriers in the past and there are many people who swear off the current G4 LAS flight due horrible reliability and G4's reputation. AS has already built credability around the Central Valley in part due to their "affordable" fares ( when compared to UA, AA, and DL out of FAT).

3. I don't see a route like FAT-PHX working for AS. AA already has a strong hold on the route with their hub and there is no need for AS to try to compete when the equipment can be better utilized. Same with FAT- SFO/OAK. SJC is also too close of a drive (2 hours in good traffic) to really warrant a flight.

In reality, this is all wishful thinking, but as FAT continues to rise in popularity (in record numbers at least for 2018 so far), I can see AS making some plays once AS/VX are completely integrated and operations are figured out. Until then, I'm glad to see the additions of more SAN/SEA/PDX flights.

Maybe SJC-FAT and others are viable just from the standpoint of being out of RON at SJC? Also, early and late enough flights would allow connections to Hawaii.