CO Secretly Re-starts Tucson-Newark

MAH4546 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:57 am

Looks like Continental has re-started Newark-Tucson service. The service began again 16 December 2006.

http://www.azbiz.com/articles/2006/12/22/news/news02.txt

codc10 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:18 am

I am surprised by the very negative tone of that article, almost as if they don't want the service.

mbm3 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:22 am

I think one of the big issues is the fact that this route seems to come and go like the wind.

BigGSFO · Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:23 am

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 1):
I am surprised by the very negative tone of that article, almost as if they don't want the service.

Agreed.

DesertAir · Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:44 am

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 1):
am surprised by the very negative tone of that article, almost as if they don't want the service.

It seems to me important to advertize service from Tucson. What is the purpose of service when few know of it? Jet Blue made their presence know.
It CO wants success then they must persue it.

MAH4546 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:49 am

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 1):
I am surprised by the very negative tone of that article, almost as if they don't want the service.

And it is pretty clear why. New York City-Tucson isn't a market crying out for two airlines. Two daily flights on two airlines can be considered overkill, and people are worried that everyone will fly Continental and ignore jetBlue. If that happens, jetBlue pulls out, and then Continental goes "oh, well jetBlue is gone, we don't need to fly the route anymore" and then Tucson is back where they started: no service to New York City.

ordflier · Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:49 am

It think the writer of the article quite frankly does not want the Continental service - primarily because they have a perception that the new service is designed not as an additional route in the Continental system, but as a way to drive JetBlue out. The result would potentially be higher fares, or a loss of passengers to Phoenix.

AirCop · Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:54 am

The timing of the flights is odd also, doesn't connect with any overseas flights. Seriously doubt that this service will harm Jetblue in Tucson.

MAH4546 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:18 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 7):
The timing of the flights is odd also, doesn't connect with any overseas flights. Seriously doubt that this service will harm Jetblue in Tucson.

The timing is awesome for O&D passenger, much better than jetBlue's redeye schedule. However, the CO flight switches to a redeye in February.

sllevin · Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:46 am

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 1):
I think one of the big issues is the fact that this route seems to come and go like the wind.

It's a seasonal route, sure, but it's been run each of the past several years, at a minimum.

Steve

azstagecoach · Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:39 am

While I understand the author's apprehension over losing B6, another nonstop from TUS to NYC is quite welcome, especially from such an excellent airline as CO. Red-eyes are an essential flight segment for obvious logistical reasons, but timing-wise they work well for many, myself included. Despite the naysayers on this board, red-eyes were integral to B6's success on the west coast, proving that it can be done profitably. Come to think of it, I have seen plenty of business travelers on redeyes as well. And next to B6, CO is the best airline for redeyes anyways... especially if you can score an EUA Smile

MAH4546 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:44 am

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 9):
It's a seasonal route, sure, but it's been run each of the past several years, at a minimum.

It was upgraded to year round in 2005, and then discontinued permanently. It is pretty safe to say jetBlue's entry is why CO is back, even though they would never admit it.

JetBlueGuy2006 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:39 am

I didn't see it in the article, what is the equipment? I would think it would be something like a 737

atrude777 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:04 am

Quoting JetBlueGuy2006 (Reply 12):
didn't see it in the article, what is the equipment? I would think it would be something like a 737

Indeed, a 737-700 to be specific.

Flight: CO1455
Aircraft: Boeing 737-700

Alex

EA CO AS · Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:13 am

CO Secretly Re-starts Tucson-Newark

How do you "secretly" resume service on a route, exactly? Wink

azstagecoach · Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:25 am

Except that after March 2 it switches to a 735-- too long a flight in one of those, even in F. Must be at the outside of its range too, no?

MSYtristar · Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:33 am

Quoting Azstagecoach (Reply 15):
too long a flight in one of those, even in F

F on a 735 is no different than F in a 73G/738/739. The seats may be a little older but the pitch is comparable. You just don't have the IFE.

Cactus739 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:39 am

Quoting Azstagecoach (Reply 15):
Must be at the outside of its range too, no?

Something tells me the route planning people at CO know how far a 735 can go....

azstagecoach · Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:58 am

The F seats on the 735 are 1" closer together, no IFE for a 4-5 hour flight, and only two rows making it harder to upgrade. With a row less F than the 733, I think most CO FF's would agree it's at the bottom of the mainline food chain-- using it for TUS does not pay the market any compliments. Then again the 733 and 735 are all the mainline they get. And I did not say it was outside the 735 range, rather I asked if it was toward the outer limits-- is it? Are there any longer markets served by CO with a 735?

ABQ747 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:50 pm

CO has now made ABQ-EWR year-round also. Does anyone know why B6 chose to start service to TUS instead of ABQ, especially since they already served nearby PHX? A few months ago, someone on here said that the ABQ-NYC route has 40,000 more passengers per year than TUS-NYC.

MSYtristar · Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:19 pm

Quoting Azstagecoach (Reply 18):
using it for TUS does not pay the market any compliments

No, but this business isn't about giving cities any compliments, as you well know. Hey, some nonstop service is better than no nonstop service.

IADLHR · Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:27 pm

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 19):
CO has now made ABQ-EWR year-round also

How long has this been year round? I dont think too long.
How is the flight doing year round, does anybody know?

Another factor that could be at play here is the new UA IAD-TUS flight. Is there any chance that UA might have been picking off some connecting pax, from the NE who otherwise would have connected at EWR? Just a thought worth mentioning.

ABQ747 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:50 pm

Quoting IADLHR (Reply 21):
How long has this been year round? I dont think too long.
How is the flight doing year round, does anybody know?

CO restarted the service within the last week or two. I was looking through their online timetable, and the flights are scheduled daily until November 2007, which is the end of their booking schedule. The loads on upcoming flights look good.

SANFan · Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:29 pm

As far as CO and pr, I know they do a lot of Holiday (temp) service (e.g., SAN-CLE) that is never announced anywhere; this seems weird to me but apparently they have enough group/cruise business (or something) that doesn't rely on public announcements to put pax on board.

Also, sometimes I think airlines come under some kind of pressure to start flights (by politicians, city government, C.o.C.s, airports, ??) and they do, but with the assumption (and hope) the new flight will fail; not announcing or advertising will certainly hasten that failure. Then the airline can go to the pressuring entity and say, "Hey, we tried, but there were no pax."

I don't know if either of these scenarios is applicable here but who knows?

Happy Holidays to All.

bb

jetdeltamsy · Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:10 pm

I don't get the title of this threat. Secretly starting service?

It's in every CRS there is. How do you get "secretly" out of that?

codc10 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:40 pm

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 9):
Quoting CODC10 (Reply 1):
I think one of the big issues is the fact that this route seems to come and go like the wind.

It's a seasonal route, sure, but it's been run each of the past several years, at a minimum.

Actually, it wasn't me who said that but the mistake you made is an easy one, so no big deal.

Roughly three times a year I travel to Tucson from New Jersey, mostly through IAH but several times in the past my dates have aligned with their nonstop service, which I have taken advantage of. Generally the pricing is competitive (~$300 each time, which is more than reasonable for such a flight, IMO) even though those times CO was the only carrier in the market. All flights I have taken were at 80% or better load factors, so I know CO has no problem with volume on these routes. The NYC expat population in the Tucson area is considerable, so that group must be a pretty significant driver of traffic on the route. The timing of the flights suggest strong O/D expectations, which is not surprising at all.

Hopefully this one sticks. The flight is valuable to me for my business (more pleasure, actually, as an avid golfer) and certainly provides a convenient option for TUS-based business travelers as well. The JetBlue effect here, I believe, is the plan to maintain year-round service. The flight would have been back for the holiday season with or without B6's entry into the market, but the stimulation of demand that a new-entrant carrier generates, especially with their apparent media blitz in the TUS area, should be enough impetus to keep CO in the market for the long haul. For the business traveler, CO really does offer a more complete product.

MAH4546 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:11 pm

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 25):
he JetBlue effect here, I believe, is the plan to maintain year-round service.

Continental announced year-round EWR-TUS service in 2005, and canned it a few months later.

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 25):
he flight would have been back for the holiday season with or without B6's entry into the market,

Possibly, but CO announced it was permanently ending the flight last year, not even on a seasonal basis.

[Edited 2006-12-23 09:18:22]

DesertAir · Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:47 pm

I would agree that the tone of the article in azbiz is negative towards CO. As many have mentioned CO's history with the EWR flight is checkered-on again, off again-day flight or red-eye. Cities like Tucson welcome companies like Jet Blue who give new service options and tend to dis the established companies when they cut back on service. CO should advertise their service for the flying public. Jeb Blue has weekly adds including the connect cities. Hopefully Tucson can sustain both flights since flying to New York means connecting along the way.

STT757 · Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:51 pm

CO is adding winglets to some of their 737-500s, that would help on flights like EWR-TUS.

JetJock22 · Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:51 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 5):
If that happens, jetBlue pulls out

We aren't leaving Tucson. Trust me.

MAH4546 · Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:54 am

Quoting JetJock22 (Reply 29):
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 5):
If that happens, jetBlue pulls out

We aren't leaving Tucson. Trust me.

If Continental's Newark flight were to succed in stealing enough jetBlue customers, jetBlue is leaving Tucson.

B737900ER · Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:30 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 26):
Continental announced year-round EWR-TUS service in 2005, and canned it a few months later.

This was right before oil prices went through the roof.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 28):
CO is adding winglets to some of their 737-500s, that would help on flights like EWR-TUS.

EWR-ABQ is back also due to this. EWR-TUS is winglet related

Quoting JetJock22 (Reply 29):
We aren't leaving Tucson. Trust me.

They not leaving RIC either Yeah sure

When the cash starts bleeding on a route airlines will not think twice about abandoning the route. CO must only fill up 8 seats in front and a few in the back and a couple pounds of mail to make it work. B6 must get much much more people in the seats.

cedarjet · Sun Dec 24, 2006 11:22 am

The guy who wrote the article is obviously jealous of Phoenix. Ha ha. And I think he's dead right about Continental's intentions. Get rid of jetBlue then jack up the price, or drop the route.

JetJock22 · Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:21 pm

Quoting B737900er (Reply 31):
B6 must get much much more people in the seats.

Got the #'s to prove it?

codc10 · Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:02 pm

Quoting JetJock22 (Reply 33):

Got the #'s to prove it?

I don't know what B6's breakeven load factor on the 320 is, but if Continental sells out a 737-500 with 114 (8/106), that's still 36 fewer seats than a sold-out reconfigurated B6 A320.

Now, figure a high breakeven LF for the -500, as it is an expensive airplane to operate for CO, even with a F cabin and the yield premium it can potentially command, which B6 does not have an answer for. Hypothetically, say 78%, which is 91 seats. That same 91 pax on an A320 is 61%, hardly enough to be profitable given JetBlue's load-driven model. A 78% LF on an A320 is 117 pax, considerably more than what CO would be profitable with. Insert a 737-700 in the place of the -500 and 124 total seats, and the breakeven number becomes 97 pax, not a great jump, and the 737-700 is cheaper per-seat than the -500 for CO, so the breakeven LF could potentially be lower.

Obviously these numbers are totally hypothetical, but it is not difficult to see that it takes less customers to make a CO flight profitable than it does to get the same effect on a JetBlue flight, thanks mostly to the flexibility CO has in right-sizing its fleet to market conditions.

[Edited 2006-12-24 10:02:43]

SANFan · Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:53 pm

As long as JetBlue hangs in there for a while, I think the flight will do fine.

In my opinion, TUS suffers a great deal with what I call the alternate-city syndrome. (As does SAN and many of other "paired" cities.) A lot of TUS pax show up in a/l data as PHX pax since they surface up I-10 or sometimes buy totally separate air tix between TUS and PHX.

Some cx (like WN) realize this and start service that has people (inc. other airlines) scratching their heads. And lo and behold, the service does great! (That has happened big-time in SAN with WN's insight.)

I think B6 saw this was a real possibility with TUS-JFK and started the flight. As long as they market it and are patient (I know that can be tough in today's economy) the people who have gotten used to just surfacing up to PHX for a n/s will eventually catch on and before you know it, B6 may need a second flight out of TUS!

I've been preaching this for years in SAN and you'd think more airlines would research markets better and consider this phenomenon. In fact SAN-TUS is one of the most perfect examples of "alternate-city" in the US because you've got it on both ends: SAN-TUS pax used to show up as either SAN-PHX -OR- LAX-TUS travelers. WN was the first modern carrier to really develop the market (3 n/s r/t daily flights currently!)

Again, I think B6 will be patient enough and the route will be successful.

Happy Holidays to All.

bb

dutchjet · Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:53 pm

I liked the title of this thread.......CO's little secret: TUS-EWR!

CO has had issues with its service to Tuscon and ABQ out of EWR....on again, off again, reasonable but not great loads, medicore yeilds, high seasonality, etc. The flights have operated on and off for years (which is NOT a good thing) and each time there is an aircraft allocation issue or other reason, these routes get cut only to return later on.

It simply seems that CO is trying again.....the 73G makes much more sense on the route than the 735, but the winglets and revised configuration on the 735 may just make these two routes work, time will tell. JetBLue being in the Tuscon market may or may not be an issue, I am really not sure, its not as if the NYC-TUS market is a huge one that is worth getting into a battle over...and if one of the airlines close the route down, so be it, it will a financial decision and nothing more.

As for the tone of the article, I think that the writer is reflecting the feelings of some Tuscon residents.....CO has opened and closed this route so many times that they cannot get excited over the situaiton, and they are apprehensive that CO coming back with an EWR nonstop once again could jeopardize the presence of JetBlue at their airport. Its a fair opinon, and remember that I am a big CO supporter.

flyboyaz · Mon Dec 25, 2006 2:20 am

This flight has been seasonal for years and years....they did bring it back permanently a couple years ago..with much fan-fare, but pulled it after losing big bucks. They said it would never come back...but it ALWAYS does in the winter. It was only supposed to be seasonal again..well really, just for the holidays...but then all of a sudden it became perm again (just as B6 started in TUS!). The loads have been VERY good....even more than a week before Xmas..the flights are full. We'll see how long it lasts.

azstagecoach · Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:29 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 36):
winglets and revised configuration on the 735 may just make these two routes work

Are they adding another row of F to the 735? Also the winglets explain why there were so many funny looking 73G's at DCA the other day... Smile

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net