Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 49): Customers will make the switch

I've heard that story before. About a hundred times.

Quoting 757drvr (Reply 46): Many people, including myself, blew off EOS and MAXjet. But both those carriers seem to be on to something.

Ways to burn through cash without a match? 

Quoting BAW716 (Reply 14): 1. They attempted to introduce a European product in the USA.

I pretty much agree with everything in your first point here. The novelty of flying into distant airports won't go over here. Lack of acceptable public transport from airports to advertised cities means people will have to rent cars, something they might not have to do if SX flew into a cities primary airport. This isn't necessarily Skybus fault. The USA sorely needs a decent intermodal transportation system

Quoting BAW716 (Reply 14): 2. They started out with too many aircraft. This was their biggest mistake. If I heard correctly, they have 60 some aircraft?

65 on order. I hope Airbus has other buyers lined up. If SX is around long enough for 20 to be delivered I'll be astonished.

Quoting Indy (Reply 15): I am probably going to take heat for this but oh well. I think Skybus is bad for U.S. aviation.

Agreed. The first time I saw their website, it was insulting. It was like a 5th grader wrote it, for other 5th graders. The condescending way they talk down in their "rules for flying" is both juvenile and insulting. I especially take exception to the no phone calls policy. If I am travelling and need a last minute change to my itinerary, I want to be able to talk to a live body, even if I have to struggle to understand around an accent. Emails alone will not always solve the problem. Also, unless they start allowing connections, or start an awful lot of P2P routes, there is a finite amount of pax in CMH, and not all will fly them. Right now they are a novelty and I'm sure they are getting a lot of new customers. That does not mean they will be repeat customers.

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 19): Frontier, Jet Blue, etc.

You cannot put these two in the same bucket as the others mentioned. They offer a much wider array of services and flight options. They may be LCC's, but they don't fly their pax into airports two hours from the cities they say they are serving, they have IFE, they are known for good dependable customer service. Despite it's size, I do not think I have ever read anything positive from a passenger's perspective about Ryanair.

Quoting Indy (Reply 20): I personally think Virgin American is great for aviation. It moves to set the bar higher instead of lower. I'm all for better service.

Agreed. VX will be a survivor.

Quoting BlueElephant (Reply 22): I'm Sorry here again. I'm sure that the Skybus Execs aren't stupid.

Maybe not, but someone in their route planning department could use some help. CMH-CHA? I know they are gunning for the folks who live in the north Atlanta burbs, but lets be realistic. CHA will never make them a dime.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 38): Virgin America has some low intro fares, but they really aren't a low-fare airline.

Correct. They do not even attempt to bill themselves as an LCC. They offer a first class product. They do not even remotely resemble an LCC.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 50): Ways to burn through cash without a match?

Again, I don't think that UA, AA, CO, DL, WN would have spent millions in lobby efforts to block VX if they weren't worried about the competion.

Quoting RSWA330 (Reply 40): Again, how do you know the capacity that SX is offering to PGD exceeds the demand? The online O&D stats? Thats funny, those stats also say that FNT-RSW has less than 50 daily pax and both FL and NW operate that route daily in season. CMH-RSW has way more demand than FNT. Seriously, SX has a month to go before they begin the PGD routes. Considering they've already added more flights before the first ones even began, I'd have to say that the bookings must be pretty solid. Everybody is so quick to jump the gun when it comes to SX. Let them run their airline. I wonder why people who aren't even affiliated with SX are so eager to watch them fail. I think people see them as a threat. If they were truely convinced that SX would fail, they wouldn't be posting on here. They post on here because they want SX to fail and hearing others agree with them reassures them of this "fact."

The problem is the assumptions. The assumptions is that there has been nil service for CMH as was the case from FNT. This is a false assumption. The data is not from online stats, but rather actual data. And yes the capacity placed into PGD will require a 170% market stimulation above the last 12 months of passengers into RSW and SRQ. Simply put I cannot see success on two daily year round flights that exceed total sold during the last twelve months.

The problem is that 100% of the stimulation needs to come from the CMH market. And SX has aptly proven they cannot stay in a monopoly market "SAN" with a greater amount of population in the combined catchments.

I have yet heard a single compelling argument for long term success. I want to hear one!

Quoting ER757 (Reply 35): There's one thing that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, if someone could enlighten me, I'd feel more educated. Skybus says they dropped some west coast cities becuse fuel was too high (they had to burn more fuel to get to/from CMH than on shorter legs). So what I can't figure out is: 1. Since fuel wasn't exactly cheap when they started operating, why the big change now? How could they not have anticipated fuel prices might actually go up over the coming months? 2. Instead of abandoning these cities, why not just charge higher fares? Seems to be like a logical solution.

Great question.
They have trapped themselves with a promise to always offer ten $10 seats on every flight. As fuel goes up the loss on the seats also increases leaving a greater crack between loss and profits.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 16): Airfleets shows that SX has currently 5 aircraft, some of those being aircraft that were originally destined for VX, examples being N521VA and N522VA (N522VA has recently been re-registered as N522SX).

N521VA and N522VA are still showing as active registrations. N521SX and N522SX are reserved still, as are most numbers in the 5..SX series. It appears that Skybus will take deliveries starting at N553SX (in service). I've asked around but have yet to find a definitive answer as to when Skybus will be returning 521/522VA to Virgin America.

JSD

Quoting BillReid (Reply 54): They have trapped themselves with a promise to always offer ten $10 seats on every flight

Hi Bill. I was wondering if you knew any way to get these tickets you are talking about, they are never available. their website says only the first 10 seats ae 10 dollars, where can I buy a ticket for 10 dollars on SX?

I am confused by your RASM CASM point, do you have inside knowledge you could share with us?

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 51): I pretty much agree with everything in your first point here. The novelty of flying into distant airports won't go over here

why are these airports considered "novelty airports"? Is it just because you don't know where these cities are that you say novelty?

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 56): Hi Bill. I was wondering if you knew any way to get these tickets you are talking about, they are never available. their website says only the first 10 seats ae 10 dollars, where can I buy a ticket for 10 dollars on SX?

They are available on the shorter routes, but for the longer ones, they are sold out. Once they extend their schedule to sell tickets, they will offer these 10 dollar seats but they go quick.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 8): As the legacies and LCCs have shown us, its not easy to make money in this industry and it won't be going forward either.

Thanks for the advice, Sherlock.

Quoting 44k (Reply 12): Quote Wiki:

Oh no, you didn't quote Wikipedia did you?????

Quoting BillReid (Reply 54): Great question. They have trapped themselves with a promise to always offer ten $10 seats on every flight. As fuel goes up the loss on the seats also increases leaving a greater crack between loss and profits.

My take is this. I have no problem with new entrants coming in. The industry may be ultra competitive and very cutthroat but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be shaken up on its head every now and again. For every IndyAir that doesn't work out, surely there are gains made in the carriers that they used to compete against.

I'm also for low fares over costly "exceptional" service. That's not to say I don't want some frills, but I think service these days consists of the proverbial Coke and peanuts. Airlines like Skybus even manage to take that away, and they make their money by charging for services that every other airline builds into the price: i.e., checked baggage.

Which is why I think Skybus was in trouble before it even began. Their bizarre choice of airports was, frankly, a little too much to overcome. Combine that with selecting CMH (of all places) as a hub and making thru flights inconvenient, at best. I mean except for the $10 loss-leader fares, what do they have going for them? Let's assume that they lose money off of their $10 fares, then the only they could ever make money is by charging higher fares. But when you add it all up, are people going to pay $59 or $79 each way for Skybus when larger, more established carriers do it for about the same price without all of the heartache of Skybus? My hunch is there are not a lot of repeat customers on Skybus unless somebody has been lucky finding the $10 bargains.

I think Virgin America has a much more sound future ahead of them. Their routes are tricky at the moment because they are going up against some solid competition but they seem to be carving their niche which is what it is all about. The Virgin name carries a lot of cache and, most importantly, the airline is extremely well financed. Plus, I'm guessing, they'll get Skybus' Airbuses back off of lease within the next few months.....

Fuel at $100 bbl plus the crack spread may sink several players...the bottom feeders usually go first....remembrance of my former colleagues at IDE. I would be very surprised that this airline ever operates 60 lines of flying. Someone paying a lowball fare is not going to spend $50 inflight on food and trinkets. We recently planned an itinerary from CMH for some folks on a tour promoting their charity efforts in Africa (therefore looking for the least cost), and SWA beat Skybus hands down.

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 31): You can, as he says, "make a pizza so cheap no one will eat it."

Just have to say thats an excellent quote to remember for every airline CEO. Cheapness meaning actual product, and not price of the ticket, I believe.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 45): it may be too late anyway

Eh, I think we are somewhat jumping the gun here. IMO, they need to advertise themselves more to the leisure crowd. If a ticket costs me $20 to CUN from the city I go to college to, I'll fly them. They don't have the knife in the heart yet, we just have to wait and see.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 51): The USA sorely needs a decent intermodal transportation system

I absolutely agree. A system like this would change the way transportation would run here in the U.S.

Quoting Indy (Reply 15): I think Skybus is bad for U.S. aviation.

I am going to disagree with you, and here's why. This airline is going to change the way future airlines run. I believe it is a good thing that they are here right now, because when future CEO's see what has happened with them, 80% would probably not take the chance of something like this.

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 56): why are these airports considered "novelty airports

I guess some people think that the major airports are the only decent airports in the U.S. Some smaller airports that I have been to have been, by far, the best ones, from convenience and facilities.

Quoting Richierich (Reply 58): Oh no, you didn't quote Wikipedia did you?????

Well, the data at Wiki was cited from here..hence somewhat credible:

http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/con...S.ART_ART_05-09-07_C8_1O6KNTQ.html

http://airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/major-national-lcc/skybus.html

Quoting RSWA330 (Reply 47): Does anyone know why SX didn't choose FMY?

FMY's website says that the old commercial terminal is now being used as office space for government agencies, and the new facility is a general aviation terminal, no provision for commercial aviation gates.

I'm not sure if Lee County Port Authority actually went through all the steps to have FMY formally changed over to a GA-only airport, but even if they didn't, there's no commercial gates available and since Skybus has been very keen on getting assistance from the airports they've gone into, they wouldn't try to force their way in.

I think they will survive. Yes, they are discontinuing service to some western cities, but i think those are sound operational decisions. If they can't make the money on the long haul routes, then just cut them and concentrate on the shorter ones. I would fly them...usually, i don't buy anything while on the plane anyway. I either have my MP3 player or have read a little or sleep. So really, i don't think there is much "difference" when it comes to the actual flight. And i wouldn't mind going outside to get onto the plane (how many airports does SkyBus use that have the outside boarding?).

Quoting Ward86IND (Reply 6): Man do NOT tell me they are about to fail. I just booked round trips in both January and March.

If you used your credit card, you will get your money back.



What cities on the west coast are they cancelling?

I know one of the cities were Bellingham, WA.

Quoting 7E72004 (Reply 5): THey pulled out of markets that were way over on the west coast that used too much fuel (which is at new highs at this point).

i feel like i have heard that one before... independence air anyone?

Quoting Knope2001 (Reply 27): (b) The ten-for-$10 on every flight is pretty clearly a thing of the past. Skybus rolled out inventory at 6am yesterday for March/April/May, and early yesterday morning I checked several markets and found no $10 seats at all, or clear patterns on with no $10 seats. Even today...about 28 hours after the inventory was released for sale, the lowest fare on any day in March, April or May from CMH to FLL is $45. Certainly Skybus sold some CMH-FLL tickets on the past 28 hours that these flights have been for sale. But at least 10 on *every* one of these flights? No, there were never any $10 seats on those flights. Also on CMH-FLL, from early April up to Memorial weekend, every Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday is $45 and every Thursday/Friday/Saturday/Sunday is $70 without exception. It seems impossible to think that every single Thr/Fri/Sat/Sun sold enough tickets to be up in the $70 fare bucket, and exactly zero Mon/Tue/Wed flights did and thus are still at $45. Not when these flights have been on sale for less than 30 hours and we're talking dates 6-7 months out after the spring break peak but before school is out. I think it's pretty clear that Skybus is moving toward a *somewhat* more traditional pricing scheme. Definitely nowhere near traditional major airlines' complicated system, but more sophisticated than what they promoted in their intial startup phase.

Wrong. Ever cross your mind that people could actually be getting on at 6:00 in the morning buying tickets? I did. I am going to Daytona and back for $60 total. And I am going to Greensboro and back for a grand total of $36.30.

First 10 seats, 10 bucks, every flight. Says so right on the website.

Actually Skybus FA's make 9.00/hr and the commision is split amongst the working F/A's. So they do not make more than the regionals. MESA F/A's even make more than Skybus. Also for OO that is base not counting any per diem or overtime. Also there is no per diem over at SX as they do not do any overnight flights. Requiring time away from base.

How is SX doing in BUR?

So lets recap,

maybe I'll send this to Letterman

The top 11 reasons Skybus will fail
SkyBus will fail because
1. Columbus sucks
2. The airports that Skybus flys to are sometimes an whole hour drive from the city
3. The airports that Skybus flys to don't have good public transportation.
4. The Skybus business plan is stupid and it won't work.
5. Skybus has 65 Airbus's's's's's's on order and they all can't fly from CMH
6. Because the airmchair A-nut CEO's said so.
7. The employees don't get paid jack!
8. The Skybus website sucks
9. Skybus doesn't offer connections
10. It can cost the same to fly on a legacy carrier to a main airport, where you get a plastic cup of soda, and you can check bags for no additional cost.
11. The boarding system of no jetways in some cities is stupid and it sucks

Top ten reasons Skybus will succeed
1. Columbus rocks
2. Most people don't care about an hour drive to save some coin
3. No-one in the US takes public transportation other then in a handful of major cities. On top of that I can only think of five airports that are acutally linked to a rail network.
4. Only the investors have seen the business plan
5. Economies of scale.
6. A lot of A-nutters have sand in their V-J's
7. The employees don't get paid jack!
8. The costs are very very low
9. If your a smart and savy traveller you can connect.
10. Yea 15 cents of sugar water, on a CRJ yaaa hooo through ORD, CVG, ATL, IAD, EWR, JFK, LGA, CLT

okay 11
11. People love super cheap airfares and are willing to deal with the inconvience.


As long as the revenue from ticket sales, checked baggage, advertising, on-board sales is greater then the cost of aircraft leases, mx, fuel, and salaries then things will be just fine.

[Edited 2007-10-18 08:15:34]

Oh and forgot to add that with the boarding system that they use especially in CMH. Come winter someone will inevitably slip on one of the boarding ramps and sue the tar out of them and it will be bye-bye-bye.

Quoting FutureFO (Reply 71): Oh and forgot to add that with the boarding system that they use especially in CMH. Come winter someone will inevitably slip on one of the boarding ramps and sue the tar out of them and it will be bye-bye-bye.

Right, thanks, I'll add that now

Quoting FutureFO (Reply 71): Oh and forgot to add that with the boarding system that they use especially in CMH. Come winter someone will inevitably slip on one of the boarding ramps and sue the tar out of them and it will be bye-bye-bye.

With all due respect, I highly doubt this. This is why airlines have insurance companies.

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 56): why are these airports considered "novelty airports"? Is it just because you don't know where these cities are that you say novelty?

No, I know where these airports are. My point is, the reality of the world is there are many people who do not. Some people will not mind buying a ticket and flying into an airport that is actually a two hour drive to their actual destination. There is likely a larger number of people who will not. I've posted this before but I'll say it again - Lets say someone wants to fly to Jacksonville, FL. They will look at Skybus website. They will see Jacksonville/Daytona Beach on the route map. Not until they get into the reservation process will they see the actual "novelty" airport is St. Augustine. Some will see it as convenient, in between the two cities. Others will see it as deceiving, or being too far away. Most of the out of the way airports Skybus is using do not have any form of public transportation into the cities they are advertised as. So that means the passenger has to have someone pick them up, hire a cab (if any) and pay an ungodly amount of money to make the ride, or rent a car. Thus, a good percentage of people will not find these options acceptable, especially business flyers. The savings in airfare could easily be offset by ground transportation costs.

I recall early on in Ryanair's existence complaints by people who bought tickets and didn't realize until arrival they were at a different airport (Frankfurt Hahn for example). OK, so maybe they should have known, maybe not. I dare say it would happen with Skybus as well. Someone is going to see a cheap fare on the website, book a flight, and not pay attention to the fact the airport they are flying to may not be the closest one to their destination. Those of us here on a.net are probably somewhat more informed than the once every couple of years traveller who's seeking out a cheap flight.

I have no issue with them using secondary airports. If they do, do not say: Boston (Portsmouth); Seattle/Vancouver (Bellingham) - even if they are dropping it. Do it like Southwest. Call it for what it is: Providence (Boston area) or Manchester, NH (Boston area). At least people will know up front, and won't be shocked if they have to shell out a hundred bucks to take a taxi to where they want to go instead of potentially getting a hotel shuttle or public transportation at a cities primary airport.

It's easy to dismiss this as people not being that stupid, but beleive me, many are. A few years back I was on an AA flight out of DFW and two hours into the flight a woman realized she was on the wrong plane. Not her fault in that obviously it should have been caught at the gate. Her fault in that instead of listening to the preflight announcements which included flight number and destination, she had her nose stuck in a magazine. So.......

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 74): No, I know where these airports are. My point is, the reality of the world is there are many people who do not.

That happens a lot on WN too for sure. I saw a sign in PHL that said "More flights to Boston " that was maybe 40 feet wide on a parking garage for WN and it didn't say MHT or PVD, I though that was pretty shady advertizing on WN's part.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 36): For the most part WN delivers a better product than the so called full service major carriers. WN does not charge for its snack pack like the others do.

And that is why I declined as free ticket on AS and bought a ticket on WN for less than $250 RT. Also I like flying an airline that runs a tight ship operation wise and doesn't waste time.

I was going to try SX from BLI to GSO and back with a DIY connection in CMH but it was going to be more hassle and money spent when I can fly on WN for less and get full service compared to Skybus.

Quoting 7E72004 (Reply 63): f they can't make the money on the long haul routes, then just cut them and concentrate on the shorter ones. I would fly them...usually, i don't buy anything while on the plane anyway.

You just demonstrated why Skybus will fail. You say you wouldn't buy anything. Skybus doesn't want you flying them, then. Part of their (flawed) business plan is based on the assumption that because people saved money on super cheap fares, they will go shopping on board.

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 19): And yet, when the likes of VX provide a sort of service aimed at the top end of the sectrum people flame that too. The reality is people DO NOT WANT NEW CARRIERS TO SUCCEED. Because it uts pressure on them and their jobs. Dont pretend otherwise, its OK to be looking ot for your self and your families. Just dont pretend it wont work because they fly to secondary airports (a la WN) or because they fly Airbusses.

Great point. A+

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 74): My point is, the reality of the world is there are many people who do not.

You fail to acknowledge that these novelty airports are already in close proximity to millions of potential travelers who don't want schelp to Boston, or Jacksonville.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 74): I recall early on in Ryanair's existence complaints by people who bought tickets and didn't realize until arrival they were at a different airport (Frankfurt Hahn for example).

That was early on. Today Ryanair is what? One of Europe's largest and most profitable airlines.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 74): I was on an AA flight out of DFW and two hours into the flight a woman realized she was on the wrong plane.

I'm sure this is somehow akin to Skybus' business model, I just can't seem to figure out how.

[Edited 2007-10-18 10:08:26]

Quoting 717-200 (Reply 76): You just demonstrated why Skybus will fail. You say you wouldn't buy anything. Skybus doesn't want you flying them, then. Part of their (flawed) business plan is based on the assumption that because people saved money on super cheap fares, they will go shopping on board.

I am confused, since Allegiant has reported people buying a lot of extras and posts on here say that Skybus is running out of buy on board, what is the source of your information?

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 77): You just demonstrated why Skybus will fail. You say you wouldn't buy anything. Skybus doesn't want you flying them, then. Part of their (flawed) business plan is based on the assumption that because people saved money on super cheap fares, they will go shopping on board.

Seems to be a lot of positive and negative flamebait on anet these days.

When is Skybus going to actually post some real numbers? does anyone know?

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 79): I am confused, since Allegiant has reported people buying a lot of extras and posts on here say that Skybus is running out of buy on board, what is the source of your information?

What source? Where did I ever say people aren't buying things? All I said is that Skybus attempts to make-up for low fares based on the belief that people will shop on board.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 80): All I said is that Skybus attempts to make-up for low fares based on the belief that people will shop on board.

It’s completely unreasonable to assume that Skybus would by now have a massive portfolio of ancillary revenue streams. There is, however, terrific potential for it to do so – and the vast majority of its streams wouldn’t involve onboard selling. Indeed, if you spend 20 minutes searching Ryanair’s website, you’ll find hundreds of different streams – testament to their combined fundamental nature in Ryanair’s operation, and the fact that Ryanair.com is one of Europe's biggest travel portals. It is, of course, continually evolving. Skybus, therefore, could become a powerhouse of ancillary revenue – and it has barely begun scratching the surface. If you think it’d revolve around onboard selling, think again.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 80): Where did I ever say people aren't buying things?

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 77): Part of their (flawed) business plan is based on the assumption that because people saved money on super cheap fares, they will go shopping on board.

By this comment you inferred that there business plan is flawed because people won't buy things on board, don't tell me you didn't. Unless you want to share how the business plan is flawed in the case that people DO buy things on board.

Damn, what was Skybus thinking not consulting you before they started up? Then they would have known they could never make money selling things on board...would have saved them a lot of trouble.

Quoting [email protected] (Reply 81): It’s completely unreasonable to assume that Skybus would by now have a massive portfolio of ancillary revenue streams. There is, however, terrific potential for it to do so – and the vast majority of its streams wouldn’t involve onboard selling. Indeed, if you spend 20 minutes searching Ryanair’s website, you’ll find hundreds of different streams – testament to their combined fundamental nature in Ryanair’s operation, and the fact that Ryanair.com is one of Europe's biggest travel portals. It is, of course, continually evolving. Skybus, therefore, could become a powerhouse of ancillary revenue – and it has barely begun scratching the surface. If you think it’d revolve around onboard selling, think again.

I think? Skybus has, again and again and again, referred to this as a key revenue source. That's one reason you can't even bring your own food on the plane.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 83): I think? Skybus has, again and again and again, referred to this as a key revenue source. That's one reason you can't even bring your own food on the plane.

Yes they have and I believe shorter flights means less people will buy or consume.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 84): Yes they have and I believe shorter flights means less people will buy or consume.

It's actually the opposite, sort of.

The problem is that no matter how long the flight is - one hour or four hours - passengers tend to have the same buying habits. So a passenger who is going to spend $20 on-board, is going to spend $20 on a one hour flight, or $20 on a four hour flight. On-board sales aren't tied to stage length, so that becomes a revenue problem on longer flights.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 85): The problem is that no matter how long the flight is - one hour or four hours - passengers tend to have the same buying habits. So a passenger who is going to spend $20 on-board, is going to spend $20 on a one hour flight, or $20 on a four hour flight. On-board sales aren't tied to stage length, so that becomes a revenue problem on longer flights.

Well that could be, though you would think the longer you are on the aircraft the more drinks and or food one might consume due to hunger and or boredom....

Does anyone find the irony in the original posters title?

The fact that they are making changes makes this whole thread redundant doesn't it?


I think MAH is right,

They want to have shorter segments because they will generate higher RASM.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 77): Quoting 7E72004 (Reply 63): f they can't make the money on the long haul routes, then just cut them and concentrate on the shorter ones. I would fly them...usually, i don't buy anything while on the plane anyway. You just demonstrated why Skybus will fail. You say you wouldn't buy anything. Skybus doesn't want you flying them, then. Part of their (flawed) business plan is based on the assumption that because people saved money on super cheap fares, they will go shopping on board.

This is great. The shorter the flight the lower the propensity towards inflight sales. I can wait til I land on a 1hr flight.
They could charge $2 to use the lav though.

Quoting FutureFO (Reply 71): Oh and forgot to add that with the boarding system that they use especially in CMH. Come winter someone will inevitably slip on one of the boarding ramps and sue the tar out of them and it will be bye-bye-bye.

With the many commuters boarding airplanes the same way I doubt this is a big concern for them.

The problem with skybus is that they fly into the middle of nowhere! Sure, Portsmouth is cheaper than Boston, but why would I, someone who lives in New England and wants to fly to Ohio with regularity, drive to Portsmouth just to save 10 or 20 bucks? Southwest at MHT or JetBlue and Air Tran at BOS are just as cheap. Similarly, why would anyone want to fly into Chicopee, for example, when they can fly WN to BDL? Any money saved is sapped trying to actually get your butt into Hartford, an hour away.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 90): Any money saved is sapped trying to actually get your butt into Hartford, an hour away.

BDL is only 15 minutes closer to Hartfors than Chicopee.

Quoting ModernArt (Reply 78): You fail to acknowledge that these novelty airports are already in close proximity to millions of potential travelers who don't want schelp to Boston, or Jacksonville.

Yes, it is true that for some, the airports SX fly to would indeed be more convenient to a certain percentage of passengers. My point was, or at least was to attempt to point out a business traveller for instance, who wants to get to downtown Jacksonville is probably not going to want to drive all the way from St. Augustine. (Driven I-95 lately? - it can easily be in excess of two hours depending on construction which seems never ending). The same holds true with other airports that lie outside what would be considered the traditional metropolitan area of a city. It's fine for people who plan to rent a car and drive or have ample time, just not practical for everyone, and my statement seemed clear on that.

Quoting ModernArt (Reply 78): That was early on. Today Ryanair is what? One of Europe's largest and most profitable airlines.

You are right. And it also one of the most complained about and hated airlines in Europe. Look at the threads on a.net - how many are there where people talk about what a great airline it is? Virtually every one I see is full of complaints. Yes, they are big and getting bigger and in many cases, pax have little choice. Sort of a "necessary evil" for some one could argue. Most surveys I've read put them high on the list of complaints about bad and indifferent service. Being big does not equate high passenger satisfaction. A few of our own legacies can stand as proof of that as well.

Edit for spelling.

[Edited 2007-10-18 15:46:59]

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 91): BDL is only 15 minutes closer to Hartfors than Chicopee.

Alright, but Logan is IN Boston and Sea-tac is only a 20 minute busride from Seattle, so my point still stands. There are advantages to using out of the way airports, but there are also disadvantages, and those are that people like me, who are on the fence, won't be going out of the way to fly them.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 92): Most surveys I've read put them high on the list of complaints about bad and indifferent service.

Please provide a link? there have never been any surveys posted on here?

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 91): BDL is only 15 minutes closer to Hartfors [sic] than Chicopee.

Wow, you can drive 25 miles in 15 minutes without getting nailed by the Mass. or Conn. State Police? (Or, for that matter, flipping your vehicle) Impressive!

Quoting ModernArt (Reply 78): You fail to acknowledge that these novelty airports are already in close proximity to millions of potential travelers who don't want schelp [sic] to Boston, or Jacksonville.

Then why are they MARKETED as "Boston" and "Jacksonville/Daytona Beach"? The people who don't want to schlep to Boston aren't going to be looking for a flight to "Boston."

Quoting Ward86IND (Reply 82): By this comment you inferred that there [sic] business plan is flawed because people won't buy things on board, don't tell me you didn't. Unless you want to share how the business plan is flawed in the case that people DO buy things on board.

The issue is that the original poster (7E72004) said that he would not purchase anything on-board, which does go against one piece of the business model -- ancillary revenue derived from on-board sales. If too many of Skybus's passengers eschew food, drink, cologne, assorted baubles, etc., they won't make their revenue numbers which IS indeed a flaw in the business model.

Quoting CMHSRQ (Reply 70): The top 11 reasons Skybus will fail SkyBus will fail because 1. Columbus sucks 2. The airports that Skybus flys to are sometimes an whole hour drive from the city 3. The airports that Skybus flys to don't have good public transportation. 4. The Skybus business plan is stupid and it won't work. 5. Skybus has 65 Airbus's's's's's's on order and they all can't fly from CMH 6. Because the airmchair A-nut CEO's said so. 7. The employees don't get paid jack! 8. The Skybus website sucks 9. Skybus doesn't offer connections 10. It can cost the same to fly on a legacy carrier to a main airport, where you get a plastic cup of soda, and you can check bags for no additional cost. 11. The boarding system of no jetways in some cities is stupid and it sucks

No, it's because:
1. Columbus isn't a large enough market to consistently support the traffic numbers & yields Skybus must drive in order to pay the bills.
2. The airports that Skybus "serves" are sometimes two hours or more from the city they purport to serve.
3. Some of the airports that Skybus "serves" have extremely limited infrastructure, especially in the case of irregular operations.
4. The European market environment is fundamentally different from the United States; the European legacies have far, far higher costs than the U.S. legacies and low-cost competition in the U.S. has been around for about two decades longer.
5. An order for 65 Airbuses is overreaching.
6. The airline business historically is a money-loser.
7. Low-paid employees will dramatically increase training costs as they leave for higher-paying jobs.
8. Practically non-existent customer service will destroy repeat business.
9. The city pairs being offered by Skybus can't consistently generate enough profitable traffic on their own.
10. Skybus's product isn't competitive with other airlines given comparable prices.
11. Operational reliability is sub-standard due to over-scheduling and lowest-bidder ground handling.

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 62): I'm not sure if Lee County Port Authority actually went through all the steps to have FMY formally changed over to a GA-only airport, but even if they didn't, there's no commercial gates available

And LCPA doesn't have to provide terminal facilities unless they offer an alternative -- which they do at RSW. Just as the Port Authority declines to offer terminal facilities at TEB.

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 94): Please provide a link? there have never been any surveys posted on here?

I didn't say they were on here. I beleive the last I read was in BTN. When mentioning a.net, I was referring to posts by people who have flown Ryanair and complained. May I ask you not "read" more into what I am saying than is there, or reread before you post? I don't mind being challenged, but make sure you have an understanding of what I wrote first please.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 96): I didn't say they were on here. I beleive the last I read was in BTN. When mentioning a.net, I was referring to posts by people who have flown Ryanair and complained.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought there was a survery for Skybus, but if it's only for Ryanair as a comparison I think I understand where you are going with it.

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 97): Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought there was a survery for Skybus, but if it's only for Ryanair as a comparison I think I understand where you are going with it.

No prob. It's easy to misinterpret posts, I've done it more than I care to recall  

But there is a difference in a small regional airplane verses an A319/320. The length of the fall make all the difference.