Skybus Effect Gains Momentum

itsnotfinals · Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:33 pm

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/...10/01/daily15.html?f=et58&ana=e_du

Fair Use Excerpt:

"The Columbus Regional Airport Authority said traffic at the airport totaled more than 721,000 passengers during the month, reflecting the 26 percent jump compared with August 2006. Traffic at the airport year-to-date is up 15 percent compared with the first eight months of 2006, more than 5 million passengers using the airport so far.

August marks the third consecutive month that the airport has set a new passenger traffic record. July saw a 23 percent increase in traffic compared with the same month last year, while June traffic was up 19 percent. "

With the advent of the new flights coming online soon, this should continue to make the 11 million dollar terminal expansion well worth the investment the airport authority paid for last year.

[Edited 2007-10-04 07:34:35]

panaman · Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:00 pm

Yep the parking lots and "B" concourse are pretty busy these days. Its good to see the area back.

I give this 4 post before an anti-skybus kid-CEO comes in and complains.

[Edited 2007-10-04 09:00:46]

Cubsrule · Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:19 pm

I don't follow CMH too closely... have other carriers grown service any, or is the growth attributable exclusively to SX?

v1valarob · Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:29 pm

Quoting Panaman (Reply 1):
I give this 4 post before an anti-skybus kid-CEO comes in and complains.

Or a pilot comes in and complains how Skybus pilots are only hurting the rest of the pilot world.

Oh wait that would be me Big grin

Looks like it only got to 3.

lowrider · Thu Oct 04, 2007 8:04 pm

I think it might be a bit of a stretch to call it the "Skybus Effect". The company hasn't yet completed its first year of operations, hasn't yet broke even, and only serves about 20 cities. Outside of Columbus, they are barely noticable. I would wait a few years and see what happens, and try not to get caught up in the hype.

SANFan · Thu Oct 04, 2007 8:22 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 4):
I think it might be a bit of a stretch to call it the "Skybus Effect".

Spot on! It's way too early be suggesting an "Effect" attributed to SX; what we have is a new airline based (in both op's and almost every flight for crying out loud) in a city that is seeing traffic growth. To CMH, this is nice; to the airline industry as a whole, it is insignificant and is certainly not and "Effect."

If SX had plopped down in any other city, that airport would certainly have seen a traffic increase (I would hope!) As Lowrider also said, let's wait at least a year and see what's happening before placing the Bus on a pedestal; it took WN a few decades before the term "Effect" was (deservedly) coined!

bb

jetbluefan1 · Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:14 pm

I'm sure that SX was the biggest reason, but let's not forget that jetBlue started 5 flights to CMH last October. So that's definitely a contributing factor.

JetBluefan1

itsnotfinals · Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:07 am

Quoting V1valarob (Reply 3):
Or a pilot comes in and complains how Skybus pilots are only hurting the rest of the pilot world.

6 -8 months to the left seat in an Airbus and 65 K first year pay...you can't get 65K first year at any US major (If they are even hiring)

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 4):
hasn't yet broke even,

They are privately held and so there is no basis to make a statement like this right now.

I agree it is only one city, but any time you can drive this kind of passenger growth it bodes well for the business model. A good example is G4, they had only 1 route just a few years ago, and have grown quite a bit.

Time will tell if this SX effect works for other cities.

itsnotfinals · Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:08 am

Quoting V1valarob (Reply 3):
Or a pilot comes in and complains how Skybus pilots are only hurting the rest of the pilot world.

6 -8 months to the left seat in an Airbus and 65 K first year pay...you can't get 65K first year at any US major (If they are even hiring)

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 4):
hasn't yet broke even,

They are privately held and so there is no basis to make a statement like this right now.

I agree it is only one city, but any time you can drive this kind of passenger growth it bodes well for the business model. A good example is G4, they had only 1 route just a few years ago, and have grown quite a bit.

Time will tell if this SX effect works for other cities.

itsnotfinals · Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:09 am

Quoting V1valarob (Reply 3):
Or a pilot comes in and complains how Skybus pilots are only hurting the rest of the pilot world.

6 -8 months to the left seat in an Airbus and 65 K first year pay...you can't get 65K first year at any US major (If they are even hiring)

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 4):
hasn't yet broke even,

They are privately held and so there is no basis to make a statement like this right now.

I agree it is only one city, but any time you can drive this kind of passenger growth it bodes well for the business model. A good example is G4, they had only 1 route just a few years ago, and have grown quite a bit.

Time will tell if this SX effect works for other cities.

itsnotfinals · Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:20 am

Quoting V1valarob (Reply 3):
Or a pilot comes in and complains how Skybus pilots are only hurting the rest of the pilot world.

6 -8 months to the left seat in an Airbus and 65 K first year pay...you can't get 65K first year at any US major (If they are even hiring)

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 4):
hasn't yet broke even,

They are privately held and so there is no basis to make a statement like this right now.

I agree it is only one city, but any time you can drive this kind of passenger growth it bodes well for the business model. A good example is G4, they had only 1 route just a few years ago, and have grown quite a bit.

Time will tell if this SX effect works for other cities.

itsnotfinals · Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:25 am

Quoting V1valarob (Reply 3):
Or a pilot comes in and complains how Skybus pilots are only hurting the rest of the pilot world.

6 -8 months to the left seat in an Airbus and 65 K first year pay...you can't get 65K first year at any US major (If they are even hiring)

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 4):
hasn't yet broke even,

They are privately held and so there is no basis to make a statement like this right now.

I agree it is only one city, but any time you can drive this kind of passenger growth it bodes well for the business model. A good example is G4, they had only 1 route just a few years ago, and have grown quite a bit.

Time will tell if this SX effect works for other cities.

Mir · Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:00 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 7):

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 8):

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 9):

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 10):

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 11):

First ever quintuple post I've seen. Thanks new a.net software! Smile

-Mir

itsnotfinals · Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:08 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
First ever quintuple post I've seen. Thanks new a.net software!

LOL oops. Yes, I kept hitting post and then it wouldn't be there. so I tried it again and it woudln't show up, now 4 show up. The Database updates are not getting back to the middle tier and up to the UI. I even hit "F5" a few times to force a browser refresh.

These new people have some things to fix Smile

SkyyMaster · Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:35 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
First ever quintuple post I've seen. Thanks new a.net software!

LOL. It hit me on another thread too. I quit trying after three.

I agree, way too early to compare the "effect" SX has. There have been Southwest wannabes for years trying to duplicate that. By the way, where are the CUN and NAS flights we've been promised?

quagmire123 · Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:40 am

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 14):
I agree, way too early to compare the "effect" SX has. There have been Southwest wannabes for years trying to duplicate that. By the way, where are the CUN and NAS flights we've been promised?

Those destinations take a little more time to establish. It gets leaked that SX gets approval to fly there, and everyone thinks it will be operations in just a couple of weeks time.

itsnotfinals · Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:51 am

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 14):
where are the CUN and NAS flights we've been promised?

All that has been reported is that they applied and were granted permission to operate the route, there has never been an announcement as to when the service would start.

It's nice to see an airline sing some restraint before launching a bunch of new service. I bet AA wish they had done that at DAL before trying to counter WN.

SkyyMaster · Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:51 am

Quoting Quagmire123 (Reply 15):
Those destinations take a little more time to establish. It gets leaked that SX gets approval to fly there, and everyone thinks it will be operations in just a couple of weeks time.

They've been announced for close to 2 months at least. If SX want to capitalize on winter snowbird pax, I would think they would want to get up and running as soon as possible. People won't wait forever for them to announce schedules to book vacation plans. They could miss out on a lot of business if they don't operate it by at least early 08. Lots of people don't necessarily want to go to Florida during the winter.

lowrider · Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:19 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 11):
They are privately held and so there is no basis to make a statement like this right now.

Show me a new start up airline that breaks even in 6 months and I will show you where the accountants from Enron and Arthur Anderson went to work.

SkyyMaster · Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:30 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 18):
Show me a new start up airline that breaks even in 6 months and I will show you where the accountants from Enron and Arthur Anderson went to work.

What I find interesting is that people claim it is a privately held company and they do not release financials, yet the same people claim SX is making a profit or how much cash they have on hand. You are correct, no startup would be profitable this soon. Let's see how they fare through the slow season.

billreid · Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:54 pm

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 19):
What I find interesting is that people claim it is a privately held company and they do not release financials, yet the same people claim SX is making a profit or how much cash they have on hand. You are correct, no startup would be profitable this soon. Let's see how they fare through the slow season.

I agree totally. Too much rooting and not enough cold hard facts.

itsnotfinals · Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:29 pm

Quoting BillReid (Reply 20):
I agree totally. Too much rooting and not enough cold hard facts.

fact 160 Million in start up capital.

avg fleet of 4 planes at a least rate of approx 190K a month for 5 months thats not even 4 Million dollars in lease payments for instance.

77% load factor

Do the math, there is well over 100 Million left in the worst case.

Fact: more money than B6 Start-up

your fact? I don't like it!

good times continue on anet

SkyyMaster · Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:38 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 21):
Do the math, there is well over 100 Million left in the worst case.

Instead of spouting off this same line ad nauseum, put some FACTS behind your claim. All you are stating is supposition. You have no idea how much cash they have on hand. You conveniently leave out costs such as salaries, airport leases, day-to-day costs of running the airline. Can I prove they are not making money? No. Can you prove they are? No. You love to use that 160 mil figure, and load factors. Every airline in the country is running LF's in excess of 75%. Your figures mean nothing Mr. Airline Consultant without cold, hard proof, and you have none.

itsnotfinals · Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:58 pm

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 22):
Can I prove they are not making money? No.

That's why I post facts rather than say thinks like "They are profitable" (Which no poster ever has) or "they will be out of business in 4 months" .

The above facts are facts and have been facts, whether you like them or not. SX is also growing and adding cities and routes, those are facts also.

[Edited 2007-10-05 12:07:32]

floorrunner · Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:04 pm

I don't think it is necessarily an effect yet, but time will tell if the same things happen in other locations that they start service at. I for one wish them success and will follow very closely what happens to them. I have learned to never say never with the airline industry.

Patrick

cloudy · Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:43 pm

These guys are using the Ryanair model. This is considerably different from the Southwest model - basically it amounts to doing everything as cheaply as possible. They don't have a call center. I can't think of any other airline, except maybe Allegiant, that won't even do connections to its own flights. Ryanair definately stimulates a lot of traffic in Europe. The real question becomes, then, will the Ryanair model work in the US?

SkyyMaster · Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:25 am

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 25):
These guys are using the Ryanair model.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 25):
The real question becomes, then, will the Ryanair model work in the US?

IMO, they'll attract a decent share of budget minded leisure travellers. Some people will be put off by all the extra charges, but that's going to wind up happening amongst most all of the LCC's eventually. If they go so far as to put advertising on tray tables, etc. as does Ryanair, that will probably turn off a few others. I do not expect they will attract much in the way of business travellers, at least as currently structured. They would need more frequencies, with a true hub and spoke system (unless they do a lot of P2P) to give business travellers more options. One or two flights a day will not cut it for many people who are time constrained. Also, despite the protestations of some, many business travellers are not going to settle for flying into secondary airports that require a lengthy commute to their actual destination. Ryanair carries bucket loads of pax in Europe, but you rarely find anything good written about them from the people who fly them. I think it's way too soon to make a determination on the success of using that business model in the states. They may be adding new destinations, but history shows that too rapid growth is not always a good thing, i.e. People Express. To say there is a Skybus "effect" after 4 months is really stretching it, but we shall see.

billreid · Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:44 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 21):
fact 160 Million in start up capital.

Nice.

Remember the old saying.

Whats the easiest way to become a millionair?
Get 160 million in startup capital, don't worry about spending it all because it wasn't your money in the first place. And before you know it there's only 1 million left. But who cares it wasn't your money in the first place, but we had loads of fun spending it and we got lots of threads going on a.net as well.

Seriously, 160 million can be spent faster than you and I think. Just ask all those defunct airlines parked in the pages of history.

itsnotfinals · Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:01 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 27):
Whats the easiest way to become a millionair?

Don't pay attention to Anet CEO's?

oh, and it's spelled "millionaire" (The E is silent)

mandala499 · Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:14 am

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 19):
You are correct, no startup would be profitable this soon. Let's see how they fare through the slow season.

I disagree. However, for them to pay back the investments in a good sustainable rate of repayments would take a while!

That said, I've seen one payback the total investment in 12 months... the income statement looked out of this world, I thought someone was "cooking the books", but the balances are there in the bank ! Nuts!

But I've seen one failing to make operational profits (yes, that's only revenue - costs of OPERATING the aircraft... no overheads) after 12 months.

I disagree in that it takes a while to create the profits. It all depends on the market situation, your planning, etc. Hit it right, it's jackpot... hit it wrong, better pack up and leave quietly before anyone notices! As to Skybus and CMH... heck, I dunno!

SkyyMaster · Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:56 pm

My main contention on Skybus is that certain cheerleaders for them make claims that SX does not release financials, so anyone who tries to challenge the fact they are making money gets flamed. Those same people will then turn right around and argue until they are blue in the face Skybus is already turning a profit. That naturally leads to the question of how do these people know this, if SX is not public. Pretty much every airline is making money this summer, and every airline has huge load factors, it is not specific to one airline. As one poster pointed out, 160 million goes very fast, and to think they still have anywhere close to that amount of cash on hand today is patently naive. SX may very well survive, but they are going to have to become somewhat more mainstream to attract higher fare paying pax. Their choices of destinations is good on some counts, strange on others. Just don't tell me they are profitable and they have X amount of money in the bank when no one really knows. Let the market shake things out and see how they survive the slow season. They are still a novelty to many. They will have repeat business sure, but they will also have quite a few "one and done" type fliers as well. The truth is no one knows how well they are doing except the folks in the front office, and I doubt they are talking, especially to a.net consultants.

RJNUT · Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:06 pm

I think the SKYBUS effect is currently reaching more towards airports/communities that probably have never even considered their propects for airline service. Suddenly, they all waking up the to the fact that they could soon be on the radar screen for service, espciallly if they are anywhere near a major city.. I'll bet airport managers everywhere are , as we speak , working on proposals to present to Skybus to become their next focus city,,, I think its rather interesting and exciting, especially with all the news about delayed, congested major airports with little end in sight!

mandala499 · Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:12 pm

So the conclusion is... We just don't know yet!

And when slow season comes, some people will argue, "look their load factor's pretty high" with per pax yield nowhere in their vocabulary... *grin*

SkyyMaster, the sad thing is, one doesn't have to be an "a.net consultant" to fall into the trap... even airline managers make the same mistake (but they pay with their jobs or (re)learn very quickly)...

Mandala499

itsnotfinals · Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:52 pm

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 32):
So the conclusion is... We just don't know yet!

that is a very precient comment. Well put.

I doubt anyone on anet has said "they are profitable" and I can't find that exact quote anywhere in the 30+ Skybus threads. What I have seen is countless people saying they will never last without giving them a chance to even operate for 1 period.

The best thing that can be done in our anet poster roles as aviation enthusiasts is to enjoy the ride and see what happens.

160 Million for a major doens't last long for sure, that's not even a month of cash for someone like UA , AA or DL but for a start up with a limited staff , few aircraft at an attractive lease rate, and very low costs it can last a while.

billreid · Sat Oct 06, 2007 5:17 pm

What really scares me is the risk of some peoples careers being flamed. For example Punta Gorda Airport and community is putting millions into their airport. There was no perimeter fence, no AFD, no TSA and no terminal infastructure. If Skybus fails, or packs it in ther I believe they should pay the entire bill back to the community. What right do they have to be LEACHES?

They have dangled a carrot with no gaurenty for success. Would those millions invested by the community have been better spent on schools and public safety rather than giving a gift to a group of egotists who are shooting from the hip.

itsnotfinals · Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:06 pm

Quoting BillReid (Reply 34):
If Skybus fails, or packs it in ther I believe they should pay the entire bill back to the community. What right do they have to be LEACHES

So if a property mangagement company builds a strip mall and then they don't get any tenants, are you saying that is different?

Or if a home builder builds spec homes and then sits on 8 months of inventory because they guessed wrong (Like what is going on all over the US right now) then the people that didn't buy the houses are leaches?

I can never understand why people on Anet think that airlines should pay to build an airport. They are a tenant, and pay for leasehold improvements and occassionally certain incentive guarentees hold some obligation, but in general airports are a public utility like a road or a mass transit park and ride station, or light rail track.

Airports are a business and they have trained professionals running them, to insinuate that airports should not have to conform to market economics is a little baseless (unless the airport is in Cuba or Venezuela).

[Edited 2007-10-06 13:35:55]

kanebear · Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:34 pm

Just so long as Mr. M. LeBlanc has nothing to do with it they stand a fighting chance...

iowaman · Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:46 pm

I find it interesting that there is all this hype about SX (rightly so considering it's a new airline with a new approach at things) but yet WN is still far ahead of anyone else at CMH in terms of boardings and still has a 10% or so growth in pax YTD.

[Edited 2007-10-06 13:48:05]

MAH4546 · Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:53 pm

Quoting BillReid (Reply 34):
What really scares me is the risk of some peoples careers being flamed. For example Punta Gorda Airport and community is putting millions into their airport. There was no perimeter fence, no AFD, no TSA and no terminal infastructure. If Skybus fails, or packs it in ther I believe they should pay the entire bill back to the community. What right do they have to be LEACHES?

You can't blame Skybus for that. It's the communities fault in a year when they are again, without air service.

SkyyMaster · Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:46 pm

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 38):
You can't blame Skybus for that. It's the communities fault in a year when they are again, without air service.

While I am certainly no fan of Skybus, I have to agree. Cities and airports will spend big bucks in the hopes of attracting airline service. When AA wanted to put a hub in Nashville, concourse C in the new terminal was designed specifically to handle connecting traffic with minimal walking distances between gates. After they pulled down the hub and WN moved in and took over ten of the gates on C (many of which are on the far end of the concourse), it's suddenly not so convenient. It's a good hike from security to the end of the concourse for O&D pax. As for airports that are making infrastructure upgrades for Skybus (or any other airline), if those carriers do go under or drop service, they can always boast of nice shiny new facilities. It may prove worthless if they sit empty, but that's the gamble they take with new entrants with new business models.

Lexy · Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:53 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 7):
Time will tell if this SX effect works for other cities.

Well, with the exception of a few of their destinations, they need to start flying TO "cities" and stop flying to corn field landing strips on the outskirts of the suburbs AND THEN MARKETING THEM AS CITIES! LOL!! Sorry, sorry. I had to.

Oh, I forget to add....Just kidding....and a... Silly

[Edited 2007-10-06 15:56:41]

billreid · Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:33 pm

SKYBUS EFFECT?

Whats that?

I've heard of the Southwest effect, but Skybus? Is that the sound of cash going down the drain real quick.
I think it be a little soon to even call it anything, we don't even know if they'll be around in six months?

itsnotfinals · Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:39 pm

Quoting BillReid (Reply 40):
I've heard of the Southwest effect, but Skybus? Is that the sound of cash going down the drain real quick.
I think it be a little soon to even call it anything, we don't even know if they'll be around in six months?

Where are your facts? at least you quit arguing the fact that airlines do not pay to build airports.

yes,they will be growing in 6 months and still very much around.

billreid · Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:33 am

This thread was wrongly titled to discuss Skybus direction. The thread is called "Skybus Effect Gains Momentum".
I question if any airline can be noted for any effect when it flies four to six leased aircraft and has been in the air only a few peak season months. The real question is whether there has been any effect as of yet at all?

Momentum by definition is Mass times Velocity. Skybus has little mass with only four leased birds, and velocity is low with just a few seats into a few markets. Critical mass is about twenty aircraft away, not four birds??

I think rooting serves no purpose and what we should see is valid comments on whether the business model is viable in the US of A. Otherwise this thread should be shut down.

itsnotfinals · Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:17 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 43):
The real question is whether there has been any effect as of yet at all?

Read the post from the first thread, there has been a very measured growth at the first P2P base and continued momentum in growing 20% + for each month SX has been around, while also stimulating traffic in general.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 43):
Critical mass is about twenty aircraft away, not four birds??

That's a nice random number, care to provide a clue as to where this magic number comes from ?

The major airlines lease many of their "birds". SX is using the same lease approach as the majors.

Perhaps you are confused as to the difference between a Wet Lease and a pure financial lease?

This operation is not a wet lease like was seen with Hooters Air (Pace Airlines) or Sky Value (XTra airways), Myrtle Beach Direct Air (Xtra Airways) or Western Mk III (Xtra Airways).

Quoting BillReid (Reply 43):
whether the business model is viable in the US of A.

The private equity community put more money into this start up than B6's start up. that type of investment in and of itself is indicitive of the ability to generate momentum.

I wil assume that since you answer each post with new questions you agree with the facts posted in response to your posts. Glad to see you agreeing with the thread once you read a response.

caspritz78 · Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:44 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 35):
I can never understand why people on Anet think that airlines should pay to build an airport.

If Skybus wants to operate on a business model similar to Ryanair they won't invest one cent in airport infrastructure. Ryanair actual made airports pay them to come. The European Union canceled that but still Ryanair gets a lot of confessions from airport managers. When the airport in Strasbourg wanted to increase their fees for Ryanair the airline moved across the border to a former Canadian Airforcebase in Germany which was just transformed in a civil airport.

Still I really ask myself if Skybus can really copy the Ryanair business model in the US. Are there enough small airports in suitable for commercial airliners in high populated areas besides the large airports? I mean Europe is plastered with old military airports. The big benefit of these airports are there long runways and large tarmacs. A fence is already around it. So actually all you need to build is a warehouse-like-terminal and you are ready to go.

BlueElephant · Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:45 am

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 16):
All that has been reported is that they applied and were granted permission to operate the route, there has never been an announcement as to when the service would start.

I read in the Dispatch a bit ago that Some of the International service was due to begin in "Spring 2008"...I bet how ever that Skybus is really really pushing to get that started before the first or second week of March, because that is when OSU's Spring Break starts...and I can't tell you how many people I know who have been checking the website daily for these tickets.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 34):
If Skybus fails, or packs it in ther I believe they should pay the entire bill back to the community. What right do they have to be LEACHES?

I agree, and I feel that that maybe another reason that Skybus added PSM to PGD just a few days after adding CMH-PGD...Its obviouly a lot better for PGD now that they have 3 flights a day in and out, that was probably a lot more incentive for PGD to upgrade its facilities.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 43):
Momentum by definition is Mass times Velocity. Skybus has little mass with only four leased birds, and velocity is low with just a few seats into a few markets

Momentum is indeed Mass times Velocity, but the word 'Gains' implies a rate of Change...That is to say...If Skybus is Increasing its aircraft size, and adding routes at certain intervals, it can be suggested that the Momentum is indeed gaining...

Whether it can be called an 'effect' so early, I don't think so. I think for there to be a real effect, SX has to start moving onto other destinations, and other Focus cities...Once that happens. Then we'll see....

I hope that they open another Focus city soon, and for SX's sake...I hope it's something large...OAK would be nice...

miaami · Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:25 pm

I think it would be hard to deny that SX has simulated pax traffic at CMH. SX alone flew 94,708 pax in Aug. The other carriers would be hard pressed to add that many pax in one month. Traffic in general increased at CMH with all carriers, the "effect" from SX toward pax growth at CMH is undeniable.

billreid · Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:22 pm

Quoting MiAAmi (Reply 44):
"effect" from SX toward pax growth at CMH is undeniable.

For readers and posters on this thread please provide some form of a model that proves that Skybus has created an effect. While doing so please remove the national stimulation rate that was experienced virtually everywhere. I think there is a massive confusion between CMH growth as a result of SX and organic growth that took place nationwide.

I am not convinced that SX was the reason that every airport in Florida experienced an average 7% growth this summer.
The nationwide market stimulation this summer is not a result of SX and therefore can not be attributed to SX at CMH.

The argument that SX generated an effect is impossible to prove. I would suggest that SX benefitted from spill with the industry being effectively above sold out. So my argument is that SX benefited from a high ticket sales environment and not from them generating new business.

My point in previous comments is that ALL airlines did well this summer. The true question would be how well does SX do during the lean months when spill is out of the equation. Put another way, show me a 93% load factor into Bellingham during the winter and a 93% load factor into Punta Gorda next August through September and I will say WOW, they are generating their own market. But how can you claim they are doing so well when the DOT stats haven't been relaesed for the last quarter yet. We haven't even seen Q2 yet.

Support the comments with fact please.

itsnotfinals · Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:35 pm

Quoting BillReid (Reply 45):
the national stimulation rate

what exactly is that? LOL Are you sure you're not also known at the self-deleting user Poitin?

Quoting BillReid (Reply 45):
a result of SX and organic growth that took place nationwide

you answered your own question:

Quoting BillReid (Reply 45):
7% growth this summer.

7% < 20% that's called math and/or simple logic

Quoting BillReid (Reply 45):
The argument that SX generated an effect is impossible to prove

um no, the numbers are real.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 45):
I would suggest that SX benefitted from spill with the industry being effectively above sold out

77% LF all summer for most carriers, hardly a sell out.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 45):
Support the comments with fact please.

please take your own advice.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net