"if Massport was informed by US Airways that they planned to make BOS
a hub of this magnitude, I'm sure Massport would be more than accommodating..."
You clearly are unfamiliar with politics in Massachusetts and the facilities at Logan. First of all, Massport wouldn't put up a dime to build new terminals. If US Airways were willing (or even able!) to put up several hundred million dollars to build an adequate international facility for this sort of operation, they might consider it -- *if* they could get permission for it without lawsuits from the surrounding communities. Delta's paying for its new terminal, American was going to pay to expand its half of Terminal B, and US Airways paid for the additional gates it opened a few years ago. There is little to no room now at Terminal E (the only terminal with FIS facilities) during the afternoon peak for international arrivals and departures. Transfers from Terminal E to Terminal B are inconvenient at best on Massport's shuttle buses. And this doesn't take into account Logan's delay-inducing airfield configuration. How would you justify the significant investment in terminal infrastructure for a hub that could have at most two or three banks? Is there even enough premium small market to small market transatlantic traffic to justify it?
Moreover, the A319 is simply unsuitable for most transatlantic routes. While the eastbound crossing is no problem, you'd be hard-pressed to make FRA
westbound with 120 passengers and baggage without a tech stop -- even with the highest MTOW option. I doubt you could do much more than Ireland/U.K.-PHL
if you tried this scheme at PHL
To respond to the thread starter:
"My feeling is that rather than being reactive, to LCC's they should become a proactive airline , and enter a market that exhibits extremely high airfares, that is underserved, and start a fresh operation."
Underserved markets with high airfares describes US Airways' business plan for the last 15 years! Look at the many of highest-fare short-haul markets in the U.S. -- markets like PIT
, NYC-ORF, CLT
-WAS, etc. -- all dominated by US Airways. US dominated 11 of the 25 highest-fare short-haul routes (all under 750 miles with average fares over $257) in the 3rd quarter of 2003. There is little high-fare competition for them to undercut -- aside from themselves!
To some degree, that is the answer, though. The fare structure must be rationalized and the operation restructured to drive out costs which add little or no value. They must offer a competitive product at a competitive price. This is not to say that they need to have the lowest fares -- they need to offer fares with an acceptable value proposition when compared to other legacy carriers and LCC's. Do something creative like comping drinks (or lounge access or meals if available) for passengers who have paid "business" fares. Make sure the product looks clean and safe to the passengers. Give the public a quality product for which they are willing to pay, and make sure employees are empowered to make that happen.
does well in the east because of their spread into other markets that are not high cost. This offsets the others that they are really paying for."
Why bother to expand in the east if your costs there are higher than your revenues? Unprofitable growth reduces the company's earnings, and we haven't seen that (9/11 and recession effects aside). WN
eliminates service that just doesn't work -- PVD
are examples of that. I find it difficult to believe, though, that they would operate 12 daily PVD
flights if their actual costs exceeded their revenues on a long-term basis.