RE: WN To Add PHL
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:51 pm
As for WN being "chased" out When your the big carrier in a city like SFO UA cold take the delays on UA Shuttle. Your right to say that WN left becasue of ATC but are we sure that the ATC problem wasn't exacerbated by UA choking the taxiways and runways in SFO and DEN to cause those problems for WN? Intentionally or not it works.
My own impression is that at SFO, it wasn't delibrate. There was an article in Aviation Week sometime in 2000 chronicling a fight that United was then having with the City of San Francisco over UA schedules at SFO. United's high-frequency flights to other CA cities, in the City's view, were snarling the airport unnecessarily. So the City was threatening regulation to reduce UA's frequencies. The City cited UA's then eight-daily Skywest EMB-120's to SMF as an example of unnecessary congestion--they argued that UA should fly, say, five CRJ's instead.
UA threatened to sue, saying the gov't didn't have authority to "interfere with its business plan." UA said that high frequencies on small aircraft were necessary to please business travelers. I don't know the outcome of the fight, but don't remember SFO ever having route-frequency restrictions, so apparently UA prevailed.
Thanks for the article STT757...confirms some developments this week. Siegel's eye-popping assertions that network carriers should enter into alliances with LCC's and even link them to their FF programs, shows how desperate he thinks US's situation is. As Neidl said, US's yields haven't improved despite the bankruptcy concessions, and the airline is still vulnerable. Kelleher's brusque dismissal of US's suggestion of alliance and FF linkups shows how confident he is of WN's financial and competitive position.
Potomac....WN won't threaten US's PHL hub right away, it will take time to achieve critical mass. And yes, connections and int'l flights will help US for a while. But when WN starts passing 100 dailies, which will probably happen sooner at PHL than it did at BWI, US is in real trouble--maybe sooner.
Interesting, too that Kelleher is who everyone's going to for comment about this big development--Jim Parker may be CEO, but Kelleher is still the face of WN.
Jim
My own impression is that at SFO, it wasn't delibrate. There was an article in Aviation Week sometime in 2000 chronicling a fight that United was then having with the City of San Francisco over UA schedules at SFO. United's high-frequency flights to other CA cities, in the City's view, were snarling the airport unnecessarily. So the City was threatening regulation to reduce UA's frequencies. The City cited UA's then eight-daily Skywest EMB-120's to SMF as an example of unnecessary congestion--they argued that UA should fly, say, five CRJ's instead.
UA threatened to sue, saying the gov't didn't have authority to "interfere with its business plan." UA said that high frequencies on small aircraft were necessary to please business travelers. I don't know the outcome of the fight, but don't remember SFO ever having route-frequency restrictions, so apparently UA prevailed.
Thanks for the article STT757...confirms some developments this week. Siegel's eye-popping assertions that network carriers should enter into alliances with LCC's and even link them to their FF programs, shows how desperate he thinks US's situation is. As Neidl said, US's yields haven't improved despite the bankruptcy concessions, and the airline is still vulnerable. Kelleher's brusque dismissal of US's suggestion of alliance and FF linkups shows how confident he is of WN's financial and competitive position.
Potomac....WN won't threaten US's PHL hub right away, it will take time to achieve critical mass. And yes, connections and int'l flights will help US for a while. But when WN starts passing 100 dailies, which will probably happen sooner at PHL than it did at BWI, US is in real trouble--maybe sooner.
Interesting, too that Kelleher is who everyone's going to for comment about this big development--Jim Parker may be CEO, but Kelleher is still the face of WN.
Jim