Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
777Mech
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:43 pm

N776AU wrote:
catiii wrote:
FlyingElvii wrote:
The only way to stop the Frequent Flyer dominance in Atlanta is through a second airport, close to the metro. And that will take the Georgia legislature.


The two options are Gwinnett and Paulding. Gwinnett's County Commissioners haven't wanted to commercialize their airport, even when groups like Propeller (who did the PAE commercialization), made a compelling case to do so. Paulding would make the most sense given the amount of growth going in that direction and the population centers around 75 in Cherokee and Cobb, if you added around 2000' to the runway.

The biggest issue with Gwinnett is that there is no room to grow without rerouting some major highways. I wouldn't imagine that's likely given that they just finished that huge project with the overpasses.

FlyingElvii wrote:
And that will take the Georgia legislature.

Which Delta has bought and paid for. Whatever they want they get.
TTailedTiger wrote:
Another route handed to DL on a silver platter. I think the WN/FL merger helped Delta more than anyone else. ATL was gutted giving DL free reign to jack the prices up for the locals. AirTran was the only airline to have ever given Delta any meaningful competition.

I miss AirTran so much. As soon as Southwest came forward with their plans for the future, you could tell it was going to be of no benefit to the consumer, even though Clark Howard was on the air the day of the merger announcement practically jacking off to the idea of Southwest in Atlanta.

Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical, but I find it hard not to be.


When WN did the first round of station closures, and ATL lost BMI/EYW/FNT etc, I tagged Clark Howard in the AJC's Twitter post about the news asking how this benefitted the consumer like he said and he blocked me.
 
User avatar
BN727227Ultra
Posts: 695
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:50 pm

N776AU wrote:
I miss AirTran so much.


Preach, brother. I could abide WN getting rid of F and losing the best paint job in the industry. I had no idea that they'd decimate the ATL ops. So sad.

An aside--the night before the merger was announced, I had a large buy limit day order in to buy AAI stock. Missed it by a couple pennies and the order cancelled. Next morning... :eek: for the want of a few pennies, I could have retired!
 
catiii
Posts: 3641
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:03 pm

N776AU wrote:
Which Delta has bought and paid for. Whatever they want they get.


Not exactly. That relationship has been pretty fraught the past few sessions, especially around the NRA stuff.
 
catiii
Posts: 3641
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:04 pm

tphuang wrote:
catiii wrote:
mjzair wrote:

It is pretty clear that he was referring to the BOS-ATL market.


Except that it wasn’t “pretty clear” in the context of all the other WN Boston cuts.


Given that I have said numerously on this forum that BOS is quite profitable for B6, I'm definitely referring to BOS-ATL here, which as you might know is one of the bloodiest route in their entire network.


You're right. I should have searched all 2900+ of your posts, instead of the thread we were in, to see what you've said... :sarcastic:
 
jplatts
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:15 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Another route handed to DL on a silver platter. I think the WN/FL merger helped Delta more than anyone else. ATL was gutted giving DL free reign to jack the prices up for the locals. AirTran was the only airline to have ever given Delta any meaningful competition.


There were actually some benefits to the WN-FL merger in the ATL market, including the following:
  • One-stop connectivity on WN from ATL to domestic destinations not served by DL such as AMA, CRP, ISP, LBB, and MAF
  • One-stop connectivity on WN to RIC from cities that still have daily nonstop service to ATL on WN
  • Easier 1-stop connectivity to RSW and PBI from some domestic destinations that still have daily nonstop service to ATL on WN
 
Northwest1988
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:36 pm

WN is about to add GSP-BWI. Currently GSP only has 3 daily flights to ATL. GSP has been drawn down over the years to the point to where people said it was a given they would pull out. If they are adding a route to such a small city, how short on aircraft are they really?
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5733
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:10 pm

Northwest1988 wrote:

WN is about to add GSP-BWI. Currently GSP only has 3 daily flights to ATL. GSP has been drawn down over the years to the point to where people said it was a given they would pull out. If they are adding a route to such a small city, how short on aircraft are they really?


Short enough I guess but they recently dropped several longer haul frequencies so that does free up some a/c for some shorter haul stuff.
Next up: STL DEN PSP DEN STL
 
Judge1310
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:15 pm

BN727227Ultra wrote:
N776AU wrote:
I miss AirTran so much.


Preach, brother. I could abide WN getting rid of F and losing the best paint job in the industry. I had no idea that they'd decimate the ATL ops. So sad.

An aside--the night before the merger was announced, I had a large buy limit day order in to buy AAI stock. Missed it by a couple pennies and the order cancelled. Next morning... :eek: for the want of a few pennies, I could have retired!


Right on! AirTran, literally, gave WN:
- An entire half-concourse in ATL (C-South)
- International operational knowledge and access (yet WN can't even make MEX work)
- Customers who actually prefer to fly AirTran (whom are now alienated as WN decides to slash operations around the country)
- An entire subfleet of smaller aircraft (B717) that could have been deployed on many of WN's current routes (and explore even more markets)
- Employees who embodied the old "maverick' spirit that WN used to have but now inadequately feigns.

WN's costs (particularly labour costs) are just so high and coupled with a significant loss of fleet availability, they're in a position that is rather foreign for them.
 
mcdu
Posts: 1656
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:05 pm

At this rate WN won’t have to worry about selling those flights from Hawaii to locations east of California. Seems everyday WN is cutting service to somewhere in the east or west coast to the east. Maybe solving their own problems with the pulling out of markets.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14629
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:08 pm

Judge1310 wrote:
BN727227Ultra wrote:
N776AU wrote:
I miss AirTran so much.


Preach, brother. I could abide WN getting rid of F and losing the best paint job in the industry. I had no idea that they'd decimate the ATL ops. So sad.

An aside--the night before the merger was announced, I had a large buy limit day order in to buy AAI stock. Missed it by a couple pennies and the order cancelled. Next morning... :eek: for the want of a few pennies, I could have retired!


Right on! AirTran, literally, gave WN:
- An entire half-concourse in ATL (C-South)
- International operational knowledge and access (yet WN can't even make MEX work)
- Customers who actually prefer to fly AirTran (whom are now alienated as WN decides to slash operations around the country)
- An entire subfleet of smaller aircraft (B717) that could have been deployed on many of WN's current routes (and explore even more markets)
- Employees who embodied the old "maverick' spirit that WN used to have but now inadequately feigns.

WN's costs (particularly labour costs) are just so high and coupled with a significant loss of fleet availability, they're in a position that is rather foreign for them.


This strikes me as somewhat revisionist history. If FL had a workable plan for the future, which several of those bullet points seem to assume, then what would the incentive for a sale have been for it? The "international operational knowledge," for instance, doesn't mean FL was making money in international markets.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Judge1310
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:28 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
BN727227Ultra wrote:

Preach, brother. I could abide WN getting rid of F and losing the best paint job in the industry. I had no idea that they'd decimate the ATL ops. So sad.

An aside--the night before the merger was announced, I had a large buy limit day order in to buy AAI stock. Missed it by a couple pennies and the order cancelled. Next morning... :eek: for the want of a few pennies, I could have retired!


Right on! AirTran, literally, gave WN:
- An entire half-concourse in ATL (C-South)
- International operational knowledge and access (yet WN can't even make MEX work)
- Customers who actually prefer to fly AirTran (whom are now alienated as WN decides to slash operations around the country)
- An entire subfleet of smaller aircraft (B717) that could have been deployed on many of WN's current routes (and explore even more markets)
- Employees who embodied the old "maverick' spirit that WN used to have but now inadequately feigns.

WN's costs (particularly labour costs) are just so high and coupled with a significant loss of fleet availability, they're in a position that is rather foreign for them.


This strikes me as somewhat revisionist history. If FL had a workable plan for the future, which several of those bullet points seem to assume, then what would the incentive for a sale have been for it? The "international operational knowledge," for instance, doesn't mean FL was making money in international markets.


It can't be considered revisionist history if every point is true. The financial incentive for the sale of FL to WN was (unsurprisingly) not for the benefit of the company -- rather it was to benefit the shareholders. WN with its $1.4bn offer was just $$$$ to the shareholders and a way for them to get into the WN pie.

International operational knowledge was something that was (and arguably somewhat still is) developed and implemented by FL and somewhat assimilated into WN. To this day, many of those same former FL folks who worked on international ops are there at the "Puzzle Palace" next to Love Field -- the issue is that their outside-the-box thinking had been (is still?) stymied by the old-timers (why stop what's been working for >40 years?) at WN after the acquisition. Regarding financials in the international markets, FL was turning profits in most of them due to the low cost structure involved. There were a couple markets that didn't perform well -- one could argue that was because they hadn't been given time to mature before WN cut them completely (I'm looking at you, BDA). FL was a primarily network-based carrier (with a few successful p2p routes) and had stations that worked well for their int'l connections: ATL was excellent for general connectivity what with red-eyes from the West Coast and AM arrivals from everywhere else; MCO, MDW, and BWI, worked well for O&D; MKE was a good mixture of p2p and O&D.

In any case, back to the topic at hand, it's quite shocking to see that WN couldn't fight more for ATL-BOS -- however, the need for redeployment of limited assets during crunch times does, however begrudgingly, makes sense.
 
Gulfstream500
Topic Author
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:30 am

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:17 pm

BN727227Ultra wrote:
N776AU wrote:
I miss AirTran so much.


Preach, brother. I could abide WN getting rid of F and losing the best paint job in the industry. I had no idea that they'd decimate the ATL ops. So sad.

An aside--the night before the merger was announced, I had a large buy limit day order in to buy AAI stock. Missed it by a couple pennies and the order cancelled. Next morning... :eek: for the want of a few pennies, I could have retired!


Great! Let’s relaunch, start a hub at PDK, get a fleet of Chinese-made DC-9s (or the ARJ)...
So... when will the Northwest DC-9s be retired?
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5092
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:38 pm

I would bet this might not come to pass for very long if the 73Max airplanes return to service.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5465
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:23 am

Judge1310 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:

Right on! AirTran, literally, gave WN:
- An entire half-concourse in ATL (C-South)
- International operational knowledge and access (yet WN can't even make MEX work)
- Customers who actually prefer to fly AirTran (whom are now alienated as WN decides to slash operations around the country)
- An entire subfleet of smaller aircraft (B717) that could have been deployed on many of WN's current routes (and explore even more markets)
- Employees who embodied the old "maverick' spirit that WN used to have but now inadequately feigns.

WN's costs (particularly labour costs) are just so high and coupled with a significant loss of fleet availability, they're in a position that is rather foreign for them.


This strikes me as somewhat revisionist history. If FL had a workable plan for the future, which several of those bullet points seem to assume, then what would the incentive for a sale have been for it? The "international operational knowledge," for instance, doesn't mean FL was making money in international markets.


It can't be considered revisionist history if every point is true. The financial incentive for the sale of FL to WN was (unsurprisingly) not for the benefit of the company -- rather it was to benefit the shareholders. WN with its $1.4bn offer was just $$$$ to the shareholders and a way for them to get into the WN pie.

International operational knowledge was something that was (and arguably somewhat still is) developed and implemented by FL and somewhat assimilated into WN. To this day, many of those same former FL folks who worked on international ops are there at the "Puzzle Palace" next to Love Field -- the issue is that their outside-the-box thinking had been (is still?) stymied by the old-timers (why stop what's been working for >40 years?) at WN after the acquisition. Regarding financials in the international markets, FL was turning profits in most of them due to the low cost structure involved. There were a couple markets that didn't perform well -- one could argue that was because they hadn't been given time to mature before WN cut them completely (I'm looking at you, BDA). FL was a primarily network-based carrier (with a few successful p2p routes) and had stations that worked well for their int'l connections: ATL was excellent for general connectivity what with red-eyes from the West Coast and AM arrivals from everywhere else; MCO, MDW, and BWI, worked well for O&D; MKE was a good mixture of p2p and O&D.

In any case, back to the topic at hand, it's quite shocking to see that WN couldn't fight more for ATL-BOS -- however, the need for redeployment of limited assets during crunch times does, however begrudgingly, makes sense.


This was one of the worst performing routes in their entire network. Why is it shocking they couldn't fight more? It's shocking that it lasted as long as it did.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 8250
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Thu Aug 22, 2019 2:45 am

While consumers loved FL for their low-fares, there is a lot of revisionist history on this thread about the overall success and future viability of the airline at the time of the merger with WN.
 
FromGSPtoChi
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:44 am

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Thu Aug 22, 2019 3:52 am

Was there a growth path for FL once they lost their bid for ATA's MDW hub to Southwest? They tried MKE but that was never going to be a game changer. Just nibbling around the edges. Southwest had the ability to stymie their growth at new location.

Ii was a big fan of FL and wanted them to get the MDW hub. I hated Southwest at that time. No international flights and not southern cities like MEM and ATL.

Judge1310 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:

Right on! AirTran, literally, gave WN:
- An entire half-concourse in ATL (C-South)
- International operational knowledge and access (yet WN can't even make MEX work)
- Customers who actually prefer to fly AirTran (whom are now alienated as WN decides to slash operations around the country)
- An entire subfleet of smaller aircraft (B717) that could have been deployed on many of WN's current routes (and explore even more markets)
- Employees who embodied the old "maverick' spirit that WN used to have but now inadequately feigns.

WN's costs (particularly labour costs) are just so high and coupled with a significant loss of fleet availability, they're in a position that is rather foreign for them.


This strikes me as somewhat revisionist history. If FL had a workable plan for the future, which several of those bullet points seem to assume, then what would the incentive for a sale have been for it? The "international operational knowledge," for instance, doesn't mean FL was making money in international markets.


It can't be considered revisionist history if every point is true. The financial incentive for the sale of FL to WN was (unsurprisingly) not for the benefit of the company -- rather it was to benefit the shareholders. WN with its $1.4bn offer was just $$$$ to the shareholders and a way for them to get into the WN pie.

International operational knowledge was something that was (and arguably somewhat still is) developed and implemented by FL and somewhat assimilated into WN. To this day, many of those same former FL folks who worked on international ops are there at the "Puzzle Palace" next to Love Field -- the issue is that their outside-the-box thinking had been (is still?) stymied by the old-timers (why stop what's been working for >40 years?) at WN after the acquisition. Regarding financials in the international markets, FL was turning profits in most of them due to the low cost structure involved. There were a couple markets that didn't perform well -- one could argue that was because they hadn't been given time to mature before WN cut them completely (I'm looking at you, BDA). FL was a primarily network-based carrier (with a few successful p2p routes) and had stations that worked well for their int'l connections: ATL was excellent for general connectivity what with red-eyes from the West Coast and AM arrivals from everywhere else; MCO, MDW, and BWI, worked well for O&D; MKE was a good mixture of p2p and O&D.

In any case, back to the topic at hand, it's quite shocking to see that WN couldn't fight more for ATL-BOS -- however, the need for redeployment of limited assets during crunch times does, however begrudgingly, makes sense.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13345
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: WN ending ATL-BOS

Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:00 am

DCA-ROCguy wrote:
Airfares in the United States are somewhat too high.
DCA-ROCguy wrote:
We never really got to see if the late 00's setup could work, because the legacies and WN got the Bush and Obama administrations to agree to mergers before we could find out. I very much suspect that it could have, as the situation had stabilized some since the immediate post 9-11 years. Legacies want us to believe that today is "sustainable" and nothing else is. I don't buy that conclusion, because the data aren't there--and can't be there--to support it.

You can't have it both ways:

You open with a hypothetical, which offers no empirical data, nor control subject to compare it to...
...and then go on lambaste officials' conclusion on another hypothetical due to its lack of supporting data.

All while ignoring that airfares (adjusted for inflation) are the lowest they've ever been for any decade period post deregulation.

Here's a 25yr fare summary, straight from the Bureau of Transportation statistics, outlining that very concept:
https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/f ... 02019.xlsx
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil

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