Quoting ScottB (Reply 95): 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 ScottB (Reply 95): 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!

Wow. Despite the heavy hint of sarcasm in this post, I think ScottB is correct!

I don't want Skybus to fail - I always welcome new competition when I feel it is sustainable and brings innovation to this industry - however I feel that Skybus only delivers on the latter and not the former. Maybe one day we'll all say that Skybus was "ahead of its time" as other Ryanair-like airlines emerge in the US, but I don't think this is that time and I don't think Skybus is going to make it.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 74): 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.

I don't think the lack of public transport is as big a factor as it might seem, particularly on flights to Florida - the vast majority of people going to pretty much anywhere in Florida other than South Beach are either going to be picked up by friends or rent a car.

But I do think you're right that once you price out the total cost of the journey, Skybus is not nearly as big a bargain as it may first seen. I wonder how many Skybus customers flying to Florida actually stop to consider that rental cars at Skybus' Florida airports are likely to be substantially more expensive than they are at a major airport. I have family in Bradenton (supposed to go there tonight, weather willing), so I fly into SRQ when the fares are reasonable. Rental cars at SRQ are frequently $10-20 per day more than at TPA. If there's that much of a difference between the two when SRQ has all the major players, how much bigger will the difference be when you're going to Punta Gorda where only one or two of the majors are going to have rental car desks?

Now if you've scored the $10 ticket, then you're almost certainly saving enough to offset this. But if you're only saving $30-40 per person,then the rental car expense alone eats into your savings pretty substantially - let's say a family of four going to Florida for a week saves $40 each flying Skybus = $160 total. The rental car is $15/day more, a spread I see regularly between TPA and SRQ. That's $105 - two thirds of the airfare savings gone. Throw in additional gas at three bucks plus a gallon, and you're into the range where it becomes no material difference.

And, as all good lovers of Vulcan logic know, "a difference which makes no difference IS no difference", and then unless your a Columbus resident who wants to support the home team, why settle for the narrower pitch, buy-on-board hard sell (I don't know if Skybus pushes as hard as Ryanair with all the announcements and such), boarding through airstairs in the wet & cold, etc.

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 101): But I do think you're right that once you price out the total cost of the journey, Skybus is not nearly as big a bargain as it may first seen. I wonder how many Skybus customers flying to Florida actually stop to consider that rental cars at Skybus' Florida airports are likely to be substantially more expensive than they are at a major airport. I have family in Bradenton (supposed to go there tonight, weather willing), so I fly into SRQ when the fares are reasonable. Rental cars at SRQ are frequently $10-20 per day more than at TPA. If there's that much of a difference between the two when SRQ has all the major players, how much bigger will the difference be when you're going to Punta Gorda where only one or two of the majors are going to have rental car desks? Now if you've scored the $10 ticket, then you're almost certainly saving enough to offset this. But if you're only saving $30-40 per person,then the rental car expense alone eats into your savings pretty substantially - let's say a family of four going to Florida for a week saves $40 each flying Skybus = $160 total. The rental car is $15/day more, a spread I see regularly between TPA and SRQ. That's $105 - two thirds of the airfare savings gone. Throw in additional gas at three bucks plus a gallon, and you're into the range where it becomes no material difference.

Wow!
Average rental rate reported by Business Travel Magazine is lower at SRQ vs. TPA so I wonder if you got it backwards or simply think its lower at TPA. Intuitively as airfares are lower at TPA then Rental rates should be higher. The car rental companies are not stupid, if the fares are low they will price to take the money saved. They do not want to leave profits on the table.

The same applies at PGD if Skybus brings in three to four flights a day the rental companies have a decided advantage over the pax. The only way out of the airport is with rental and you will pay very very well for this. Total trip cost may be higher to PGD than into RSW, because ticket purchase in many cases is irrational assuming savings without looking at other costs.

If I were a rental company and I knew pax were coming in on $10 fares I would take the highest yield on ground transortation available doubling TPA or RSW rates. I would very quickly payoff my start-up costs for setting up business at this G.A. airport and ensure my investment is paid off within four months because I have no gaurentee that Skybus will remain more than four months. I would consider Bellingham pulldown when setting my pricing stratedgy.

So much for savings!

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 51): 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.

        

I also found it a little childish. I'm curious though, how do they enforce the not bringing food onboard policy? Are you fined if you're caught with a sandwich? Just another way for Skybus to make some revenue!

Pretty much have to agree with everyone on here that the problem with Skybus on the West Coast is that the fares are NOT significantly lower than Southwest. The $10 fares are sight unseen here because apparently the folks who live in CMH know exactly when they become available and basically have a 3 hour head start to nab them when they are released. The cheapest fares I've been able to find on SX are $75 one way, and that is almost 6 months in advance! So, Skybus certainly does not stand out as being a bargain here compared to other airlines. Add in the hassle factor of paying for EVERYTHING on your flight, and it is going to cost more than Southwest! Incredible! No wonder they are pulling out of the market! It is surprising to me that a city like San Diego (2nd largest in California, after Los Angeles) is unprofitable for Skybus. Something does not add up here. Best of luck to all the SX employees!

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 19): dont see why you guys dont see the SkyBus model working. Its all about the costs.

No, it's not. It's also about the REVENUE, which gets stimulated from an airline offering a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

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

However, of these millions of potential travelers close to, and willing to use, the novelty airports (I think the term "secondary" is a better fit) how many will be happy with one destination only -- Columbus!?

Sure, other cx use secondary airports too (G4, WN in some cases) but you can get, in WN's case for example, to almost any of their other 60+ destinations nation-wide. In the case of SX, currently any city on the system has one, or maybe 2, possible destinations which certainly cuts way down on the potential number of originating pax using them.

bb

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 17): I believe they are currently operating 5 leased aircraft. They do, however, have 65 A320 on order directly from Airbus.

4 being leased, 1 of them is theirs with the 156 seat configuration. The 4 being leased only have 144 seats.

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?

I would say your best bet is to sign up for their emails....they'll send you an email the day they launch new ticket bookings to where you can get the lower priced seats.......if you're willing to go to Chatanooga or Milwaukee in the winter time, it seems like there are plenty of $10 seats available.....that would seem very concerning to me if I were an SX executive.

Quoting LH417AF025 (Reply 66): i feel like i have heard that one before... independence air anyone?

Oh my....I can't stand it when people keep comparing SX to Independence......completely different operating costs.....at least SX isn't going to keep throwing money away flying to those west coast cities as a lot of the majors do......I disagree with how they suspended service before they got to the dates in which people had bought tickets through, but I think it's wise to not keep throwing your money away, especially when you're just starting out. I will probably say those cities will return in the future, especially if by some miracle oil goes down......these oil records are not only going to hurt SX, but every carrier......

Quoting Quagmire123 (Reply 107): 4 being leased, 1 of them is theirs with the 156 seat configuration. The 4 being leased only have 144 seats.

Why don't they take a row off of their A319 to eliminate the cost of having an extra F/A?

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 110): Quoting Quagmire123 (Reply 107): 4 being leased, 1 of them is theirs with the 156 seat configuration. The 4 being leased only have 144 seats. Why don't they take a row off of their A319 to eliminate the cost of having an extra F/A?

The EXACT same reason they scheduled a twenty minute turn after a four hour flight. Clueless management.
The greenest rookie scheduler learns and knows that you don't schedule a twenty minute turn on a flight where weather conditions varience generally will exceed the twenty minute window.

This airline has WANNA-BEES for management that haven't attended Airline 101 school. They are nothing less than Clueless and they better learn pretty darn fast!

If I were their investors I would be very very very very worried about the cash I threw behind these fools that know NIL about the airline and airport business in Amerioca.

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.

Actually, they do run out of food on almost every west coast flight.....to the point where the planes really need to be catered on the west coast. This has been unfortunate for some people traveling back east to CMH. They are already making shifts in what kind of food and merchandise they sell onboard though. I think the meatloaf, and chicken has gone bye-bye as it was too hard to keep fresh on two long-haul flights. They are also now selling SX merchandise on board as well.

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.

You're completely wrong on this.....are you signed up for the SX email that goes out when the launch the new ticket sales? People were probably just faster on the trigger than you.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 28): My bets are on VX folding before SX, absent any drastic changes to the business model and further cash infusions.

VX's solution is to throw money at everything...(except their wages)...those fancy interiors are very expensive.....I could see VX sticking around even if they're losing a ton of money, because a billionaire like Richard Branson will just keep throwing money into it. I think SX is on to something a little better.....serving airports and areas that aren't already served.....people need to stop just thinking about the main heart of the city.....VX is basically just doing what everyone else already does.....except they're spending more money on their plane's interiors to do it.

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.

When SX started flying oil was at $60/barrel....now it is pushing $90......huge price difference! If they started charging higher fares, now they wouldn't be competitive with the major carriers flying directly into Seattle and San Diego.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 110): Why don't they take a row off of their A319 to eliminate the cost of having an extra F/A?

I couldn't agree on this issue more. I've been in the 156 seater....it's not comfortable at all, and I'm only 5'9". Apparently the amount of profit they make selling those extra 6-12 seats exceeds what it costs to pay that extra FA. Personally I would eliminate the last 6 seats and give everyone just a little more leg room. I think sometimes SX does things to get initial customers, but not enough attention to attracting repeat customers. If you've always flown on the 144 seat aircraft, which 4 out of the 5 are, then you may be very unhappy the first time you get put on the 156 seater.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 111): The EXACT same reason they scheduled a twenty minute turn after a four hour flight. Clueless management. The greenest rookie scheduler learns and knows that you don't schedule a twenty minute turn on a flight where weather conditions varience generally will exceed the twenty minute window.

These 25 minute turns won't hold this winter.

Quoting Quagmire123 (Reply 112): When SX started flying oil was at $60/barrel....now it is pushing $90......huge price difference! If they started charging higher fares, now they wouldn't be competitive with the major carriers flying directly into Seattle and San Diego.

Which is why they dropped some west coast cities, correct? So, if I get what you're saying, then they can't serve the west coast (or at least the likes of BLI) when fuel prices exceed a certain threshold. I am not expert in running an airline, but this seems like a faulty busniess plan to me. Should we expect them to come back if fuel prices drop? You can't run an airline this way and expect passengers to support it - they don't know if the carrier is going to show up at their airport or not if they buy a ticket 6 months in advance.....

Quoting ER757 (Reply 114): Which is why they dropped some west coast cities, correct? So, if I get what you're saying, then they can't serve the west coast (or at least the likes of BLI) when fuel prices exceed a certain threshold. I am not expert in running an airline, but this seems like a faulty busniess plan to me. Should we expect them to come back if fuel prices drop? You can't run an airline this way and expect passengers to support it - they don't know if the carrier is going to show up at their airport or not if they buy a ticket 6 months in advance.....

I agree that SX handled the flight cancellations the incorrect way....they didn't even allow customers who bought tickets through March to continue on those flights. They should have just not sold anymore flights beyond that point. I wouldn't necessarily go as far as saying the plan was faulty.....it's commendable that they're making adjustments with such high fuel prices, something that's harder for majors to do. With those west coast routes, those planes were tied up all day just making 4 runs (in the case of Burbank)......now those aircraft can make, say....12 runs. I don't really think anyone expected oil to climb as high as it did, in the short amount of time that it did. With SX's lower CASM though, it can probably be safe to assume that the high oil is hitting the majors harder than it is SX. But with SX being so new, and operating on investor money, they have to make decisions rather quickly about whether or not to keep throwing money into an unprofitable market.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 111): Clueless management.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 111): This airline has WANNA-BEES for management that haven't attended Airline 101 school

Didn't their CEO come from Ryanair? You already contradicted yourself 4 times in this post.

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 116): Didn't their CEO come from Ryanair? You already contradicted yourself 4 times in this post.

I believe the CEO came from WN, but whether he worked for Ryanair or Southwest doesn't nescsarily qualify him to be a top airline person. His experience and knowledge is more important.

I still do not understand the twenty minute turn on a CMH to west coast flights.
I hear nil explanation from the pro-SX lobby on this screw-up.

I also do not understand putting more capacity into PGD than exists demand into SRQ+RSW combined.
I believe it is a weak assumption that they can stimulate over 150% int to the region via a tertiary airport.
Again the pro-SX lobby is missing on the justification for this.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 117): I believe the CEO came from WN, but whether he worked for Ryanair or Southwest doesn't nescsarily qualify him to be a top airline person. His experience and knowledge is more important.

SX CEO is Bill Diffenderfer, he has no Airline experience. I had the pleasure to meet him, and he is a very smart and likable guy. However, he admitted he has no experience running an airline.

Quoting Quagmire123 (Reply 113): These 25 minute turns won't hold this winter.

That was one of his big points about what SX will do different from all the other carriers: their planes will spend as little time as possible on the ground. His rationale was: if the plane is not flying, it's not making money.

I see a lot of operational problems arising this winter with these quick-turns. Also, these 25 minute turns cannot possibly allow time for aircraft cabin cleaning: by the time the last of 144 pax has come off, you must board, to make the turn. It is physically impossible to clean the plane. Perhaps someone who has flown SX could comment on the cleanliness of the planes. I'm sure the problem will only get worse as the planes get older.

The reincarnated Pan Am flew to secondary airports exactly as Skybus is doing. Pan Am is no longer in business.

I find it hard to believe that there is enough demand for multiple, nonstop flights every day from CMH to the other cities on the Skybus network.

I just discovered a very odd thing about the Skybus website. When you click on any origin city, the site then requires you to specify your destination city even though CMH is the only possible destination! I guess they want to try to give the impression that a passenger can actually fly to places other than CMH (such as MKE-GSO).

Quoting Quagmire123 (Reply 109): at least SX isn't going to keep throwing money away flying to those west coast cities as a lot of the majors do

I guess that's one way to look at it. However, I wonder if the majors "keep throwing money away" flying to the west coast just for fun or perhaps because it's full of very popular destinations that their customers demand service to?

It is true that WN quit flying transcons to the west coast but the big difference is, WN customers can still get to the coast (via direct, 1-stop flights or even connections) whereas SX customers, after February, can no longer fly to San Diego, period. And after January, SX customers can no longer get to Bellingham/Seattle/Vancouver etc. (And I find it particularly amazing that one of SX's very few warm-weather, winter tourist destinations, SAN, is being dropped at all before summertime; that leaves SX with BUR, MSY and 3 Florida destinations as warm-weather cities.)

Quoting 44k (Reply 118): That was one of his big points about what SX will do different from all the other carriers: their planes will spend as little time as possible on the ground. His rationale was: if the plane is not flying, it's not making money. I see a lot of operational problems arising this winter with these quick-turns. Also, these 25 minute turns cannot possibly allow time for aircraft cabin cleaning

Hmmmm, seems to me there's another rather successful cx that does 25-minute turns routinely. Quick turns can certainly be done but it takes a lot of effort and practice, excellent training of ground personnel, and a good likelyhood that the inbound will be on time, (plus, I would bet jet bridges make it easier too, especially in the winter!   )

I have trouble believing that SX's contract ground workers (along with an amazing lack of any actual company employees at their stations) can pull off quick turns with any kind of regularity. The other major cx have not even been able to get the 25- or even 30-minute turn figured out (on full-sized jets) so I think SX is foolish to be even trying them (yet), especially, as 44k pointed out, in the winter.

bb

How is SX doing in BUR? I would hope it's doing well since BUR with the exception of B6 going to JFK there's not much any longer domestic flights over two hours.

LACA773

Quoting LACA773 (Reply 121): How is SX doing in BUR? I would hope it's doing well since BUR with the exception of B6 going to JFK there's not much any longer domestic flights over two hours.

Quoting SkyguyB727 (Reply 119): I find it hard to believe that there is enough demand for multiple, nonstop flights every day from CMH to the other cities on the Skybus network.

Apparently Nationwide Investments and Merrill Lynch among others disagree.


Many people are forgetting that SX has 30 Million

Quoting CRJ200FAGuy (Reply 9): Where's Itsnotfinals?

I was at a corporate retreat fly fishing and doing other outdoorsy stuff, I am glad I missed this thread  

Quoting ScottB (Reply 95): 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 Richierich (Reply 100): Wow. Despite the heavy hint of sarcasm in this post, I think ScottB is correct!

Agawam is where I am mostly and I used that as an estimate of how far BDL is. BDL is about 15-17 minutes from Agawam, and Chicopee is about 7-10 minutes away the other direction.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 122): Many people are forgetting that SX has 30 Million

should have read 30 million more than B6 had at start up, 130 Million for B6, 160 Million for SX.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 124): Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 122): Many people are forgetting that SX has 30 Million should have read 30 million more than B6 had at start up, 130 Million for B6, 160 Million for SX.

...given what the cost of "Black Gold" was back then and what it is now...that $30 million is getting "guzzled" quite quickly.....

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 19): You might want to tell that to Ryanair and Air Asia, and to a lesser extent the psuedo LCCs like EasyJet, Air Berlin, Frontier, Jet Blue, etc. They seem to be doing exceptionally well on a "concet that wont work".

Quoting Racercoup (Reply 25): I thought there was a global pilot shortage? Where will crews willing to work for such short money come from to man these 60+ aircraft?

They are having a bit of a tough time.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 32): No. I am correct. SX employees are paid better than the regional airlines I was talking about.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 48): Skywest pays their FO's $19 per hour. Skybus pays their FO's $32 per hour. Skywest's first year captains get paid about $55 per hour while Skybus pays their first year's $68 per hour.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 48):

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 48): Skywest pays the average captain $70 per hour while Skybus pays $117 per hour.

Um, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

First off, there ARE NO 1st year captains at Skywest because 90% of the FOs hired do not have the total flight time to upgrade. Second of all, Skybus pays their pilots SALARY which comes out to 65,000 a year with only a 3% raise each year.

Compare that to a 3rd year Skywest captain who is pulling about $72,000 a year gross.

ASA 3 year captain : $70,000
Comair 3 year captain: $70,000
ExpressJet 3 year captain: $76,800
UA 3 year 320 captain: $146,400
WN 3 year 737 captain: $170,000.


I pulled those numbers off of the CRJ-200 too. -700 captains get paid a little more.

Scuzzbus makes its money off of the backs of the employees.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 125): ...given what the cost of "Black Gold" was back then and what it is now...that $30 million is getting "guzzled" quite quickly.....

That's what yeild management is all about. 75 Dollars a barrell versus 90ish now. 160 Million was their start up funding versus 130 Million for B6. If you add inflation it's only about 15 Million dollars more.


that extra 15 million in funding offsets a 60 cent a gallon price increase for 4.16 million gallons of JET A which for only having 5 aircraft helps for quite some time.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 127): That's what yeild management is all about. 75 Dollars a barrell versus 90ish now. 160 Million was their start up funding versus 130 Million for B6. If you add inflation it's only about 15 Million dollars more.

$75?.....When B6 started, oil was at $12/barrel!*



*-source-New York Mercantile Exchange....

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 128): 75?.....When B6 started, oil was at $12/barrel!*

I was pointing out what oil cost when SX was getting started. Your point certainly adds to the argument that SX can survive increased fuel prices since they had more funding than B6 and B6 experienced a 290%+ increase in fuel prices from their original starting point and are still around and profitable.

Quoting Ualcsr (Reply 103): I'm curious though, how do they enforce the not bringing food onboard policy?

Last time I looked the "no food" policy was not in their Contract of Carriage, so I doubt they actually try to enforce it. I guess hypothetically it could come under the "obeying a crewmember's instructions", but that's really stretching it.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 102): Average rental rate reported by Business Travel Magazine is lower at SRQ vs. TPA so I wonder if you got it backwards or simply think its lower at TPA.

My comment is based on my personal expeience - I've flown to Tampa Bay 8-12 times a year for the last 5 years, and as my brother lives in Bradenton, I've flown into SRQ several times, and checked the flights and rental car prices on several other occasions. I have never seen the same class rental car for the same dates quoted for less at SRQ than at TPA. Not once. SRQ has almost always been higher. During peak times (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Spring Break) I've seen the spread narrow, and on a few occasions have seen SRQ equal to TPA, at least for larger cars. But on basic economy cars booked a month or more in advance, I have never seen SRQ cheaper than TPA.

Now it's entirely possible that Business Travel Magazine is looking at walk-up rates or rates booked only a few days in advance, in which case their experience could be different than mine. Also, most of my trips have a Friday evening or Saturday morning arrival, so I'm getting a "weekend" rate, and I'm usually booking a compact or intermediate, so again business travelers would have an entirely different profile.

I'd submit that except for car class choice for families, my personal profile is much closer to a typical Skybus passenger than a business traveler.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 102): Intuitively as airfares are lower at TPA then Rental rates should be higher.

I'd argue that's not intuitive at all - supply and demand sets the prices, simple as that, just like any othe consumer product or service. By your logic, rental cars booked further in advance should cost more than those booked closer to travel date, since the rental car company could assume the advance-buyer is getting a cheaper plane ticket and thus has more to spend. But they aren't, you get a lower rate for booking further in advance. The rental car companies use the same general yield-management theories as the airlines use, just not to the same extreme.

And consumers are going to have less choice at Punta Gorda than at TPA or SRQ. TPA and SRQ both have all the major players on-site (or a 5-minute shuttle ride away in the case of National/Alamo at TPA.) TPA also has at least four other players in shuttle-bus range too. Punta Gorda only has two - Hertz and Enterprise (from November 1.) Again, supply and demand - rental car companies are not all going to set up shop for a couple of Airbuses a day.

No comments on the GSO expansion, hiring 375 employees, up to 9 million in incentives , adding more flights at PSM, and still doing very well at CMH.

Why no response for the OTS now?

I'm just not convinced the low cost carrier model is sustainable for anyone long term. Even carriers like Southwest who helped create the whole low cost carrier phenomenon are finding it has limits. They depend on quick turn around times, which allows higher aircraft utilization rates and a lower fixed cost structure. But as Southwest has matured its labor costs have risen. Aircraft utilization rates have suffered as well post 9-11. The larger they have become the less they operate like a low cost carrier. Southwest's profits in recent quarters have come almost exclusively from their fuel hedges and as those expired the cost advantage reaped from them evaporated as well. If the market outlook was so rosey they wouldn't be figuring out how to make international flights work. Obviously they realize that the US domestic market is matured to a point that their just aren't many more dots on the map that can be connected with a 737/A319/A320 sized aircraft.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 124): should have read 30 million more than B6 had at start up, 130 Million for B6, 160 Million for SX.

Take inflation into consideration and most likely the numbers are closer than you want to make them out.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 133): Take inflation into consideration and most likely the numbers are closer than you want to make them out.

yes, I already posted the inflation difference, but no in this thread sorry, with inflation adjustment BG had 148,000,000 for start up vs SX 160,000,000. SX has only 12 Million more.

You said:

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

Now you say:

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 123): Agawam is where I am mostly and I used that as an estimate of how far BDL is. BDL is about 15-17 minutes from Agawam, and Chicopee is about 7-10 minutes away the other direction.

Agawam to CEF is a good 20 minutes. I don't see how you make a 12 mile drive from Agawam to CEF in "7-10 minutes." BDL is about 15-17 minutes from Agawam if you're doing 20 over the speed limit. And in any event, BDL to CEF is STILL 25 miles. Not to mention that Agawam MASS itself is 30 minutes from Hartford. No one would dispute that CEF is a good option for getting to Springfield, but that's not how it's advertised.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 127): 160 Million was their start up funding versus 130 Million for B6. If you add inflation it's only about 15 Million dollars more.

Um, no. The Consumer Price Index (from http://www.bls.gov/cpi/) went from 169.8 in February, 2000 (when JetBlue commenced scheduled operations) to 207.9 in May, 2007 (when Skybus started flying revenue passengers). That represents inflation of 22.4% -- meaning that jetBlue's $130 million in 2000 dollars would have comparable buying power to $159 million 2007 dollars. And this ignores the fact that the cost of a key input, jet fuel, has escalated far more rapidly than core inflation.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 129): B6 experienced a 290%+ increase in fuel prices from their original starting point and are still around and profitable.

B6 offers a better product than Skybus with a home market that is in the neighborhood of five to ten times the size of Columbus.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 122): Apparently Nationwide Investments and Merrill Lynch among others disagree.

Merrill Lynch makes bad investments, too; they've already said they're going to take a $5 BILLION dollar charge in the third quarter to write down the value of collateralized debt obligations.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 131): No comments on the GSO expansion, hiring 375 employees, up to 9 million in incentives , adding more flights at PSM, and still doing very well at CMH.

Where's the evidence for "still doing very well at CMH?" All I see is routes from CMH being cut and replaced with seasonal Florida service. As for GSO: throwing more good money after bad.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 135): Um, no. The Consumer Price Index (from http://www.bls.gov/cpi/) went from 169.8 in February, 2000 (when JetBlue commenced scheduled operations) to 207.9 in May, 2007 (when Skybus started flying revenue passengers). That represents inflation of 22.4% -- meaning that jetBlue's $130 million in 2000 dollars would have comparable buying power to $159 million 2007 dollars. And this ignores the fact that the cost of a key input, jet fuel, has escalated far more rapidly than core inflation.

I used 2002 , sorry, my bad, so SX has AS MUCH MONEY as B6.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 135): B6 offers a better product than Skybus with a home market that is in the neighborhood of five to ten times the size of Columbus.

well if you live in CMH or GSO you can't enjoy B6's home market can you?

Quoting ScottB (Reply 135): Merrill Lynch makes bad investments, too; they've already said they're going to take a $5 BILLION dollar charge in the third quarter to write down the value of collateralized debt obligations.

so did Countrywide, BOA, etc.

this is apples and grapefruits comparison different market

Quoting ScottB (Reply 135): Where's the evidence for "still doing very well at CMH?" All I see is routes from CMH being cut and replaced with seasonal Florida service. As for GSO: throwing more good money after bad.

readt the posts. SX is smartly redeploying assets. Whn B6 pulled out of ATL people predicted gloom and doom too.

Quoting Quagmire123 (Reply 112): They are also now selling SX merchandise on board as well.

Any model airplanes to be had?

Quoting SANFan (Reply 120): It is true that WN quit flying transcons to the west coast

Actually, that is not true. Southwest flies TWICE a day, non-stop, SAN-BWI! That service was never dropped and it is full every day. I'm not sure where the rumor was started that Southwest pulled out of all transcon markets, but that is not true at all. Just F.Y.I.!

Quoting ScottB (Reply 135):

If you really want to nitpick:

I said Agawam is 10 minutes fom Chicopee. I was not sure on the exact location of the airport, but Agawam to Chicopee can easily be done in 10 minutes. Also, BDL can be done in 15 minutes easy from Agawam which is just under 10 miles away.

Apparently, not only has Skybus declared that Portsmouth, NH = Boston, they have now officially made it a part of Massachussetts!

Excerpt from Ad: "Daily Nonstops from Portsmouth, MA"

See:

http://www.jaunted.com/story/2007/10...s+So+Wants+Portsmouth+To+Be+Boston




What's next?

Gulfport, Louisiana?
Chicopee, Connecticut?
Chattanooga, Georgia?
Richmond, District of Columbia?

Even if it's a typo, these clowns are a joke.

Quoting Avianca707359B (Reply 140): Apparently, not only has Skybus declared that Portsmouth, NH = Boston, they have now officially made it a part of Massachussetts!

That's really sad. They are starting to appear as if they are grasping here. Chattanooga, Georgia is going to be a disaster for them. Now that they've been around, I'd be curious to know LEGITIMATE numbers for them, not what someone thinks. Of particular interest I would like to find out how much repeat business they get. Flying any airline once is a novelty. Keeping the pax coming back will prove their ability to survive. The fact they are already dropping cities, despite what I am sure will be some very "logical" arguments from their cheerleaders, is not a good sign.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 136): well if you live in CMH or GSO you can't enjoy B6's home market can you?

I always love this argument. It's beyond ridiculous.
If B6 had picked CMH and GSO as their home markets, they wouldn't have made it seven-plus years....

Quoting Richierich (Reply 142): If B6 had picked CMH and GSO as their home markets, they wouldn't have made it seven-plus years....

your argument is ridiculous, having a hub in an underserved market makes a lot of since, and SX just scared SX out of CMH.

B6 has adjusted their business model several times, yet they are still in business, DL dumped DFW and realigned ATL and no one said they were not going to make it .

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 143): SX just scared SX out of CMH.

Wait... what?   

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 141): The fact they are already dropping cities, despite what I am sure will be some very "logical" arguments from their cheerleaders

Maybe you didn't see the press releases and several threads on Anet. They will be serving more cities than ever with GSO and expansion in Portsmouth.

15% growth each month has been reported.


B6 adjusted out of OAK-FLL and CMH and BNA this week yet no one is saying they are going out of business.

[Edited 2007-10-24 19:58:01]

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 136): Quoting ScottB (Reply 135):Where's the evidence for "still doing very well at CMH?" All I see is routes from CMH being cut and replaced with seasonal Florida service. As for GSO: throwing more good money after bad. readt the posts. SX is smartly redeploying assets. Whn B6 pulled out of ATL people predicted gloom and doom too.

I have "read the posts." I don't see any evidence whatsoever that SX is "still doing very well at CMH." First we're told by the SX boosters that the transcon routes are just fantastic performers -- and now we're seeing 60% of the daily transcon flights being dropped. Sure, sending the planes to Florida from mid-February to mid-April makes sense, but then what? I still don't see any concrete evidence that things are going great at Skybus. Everything was going great at Enron until shortly before the whole house of cards collapsed.

A lot of people opined even before B6 started its ATL-LGB and later ATL-OAK that the routes simply wouldn't work given the strength of DL and FL in the ATL market. And guess what, they were right! Cheap flights to vacation destinations -- like what Allegiant has been doing -- make sense. Cheap flights between Columbus and Seacoast NH = money losers.

Quoting Avianca707359B (Reply 140): Apparently, not only has Skybus declared that Portsmouth, NH = Boston, they have now officially made it a part of Massachussetts!

Not only that but it's the ONLY place they mention "Portsmouth." The rest of the ad claims Columbus and Greensboro have service to "Boston" with no disclaimer regarding Portsmouth. That's just plain deceptive.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 136): well if you live in CMH or GSO you can't enjoy B6's home market can you?

So what? That doesn't change the fact that CMH and GSO are far, far, far from being as strong markets as NYC.

If Skybus pays their F/As only $9.00 per flight hour, they are in violation of Ohio's minimum wage law unless they have some exemption that is unknown to me. Based on $9.00 per flight hour and 100 hours per month, a Skybus F/A would earn $900 before taxes. Based on Ohio's current minimum wage of $6.85 per hour and a 40 hour workweek X 4, the monthly minimum wage would be $1096 before taxes.

When I flew for a regional airline at $12.65 per flight hour with a 65 hour per month guarantee, I was barely earning the federal minimum wage. That was 12 years ago!

Quoting ScottB (Reply 146): but then what? I still don't see any concrete evidence that things are going great at Skybus

you also have no evidence to prove they are doing poorly, so we will all have to wait and see won't we?

Quoting ScottB (Reply 146): The rest of the ad claims Columbus and Greensboro have service to "Boston"

WN says Boston in some of their ads also. The webste specifically says "Portsmouth" in the drop down when you pick your city. There is no deception there.

Quoting SkyguyB727 (Reply 147): If Skybus pays their F/As only $9.00 per flight hour,

they have stated F/A will earn an average of 35,000 a year. Also your duty times are way off as SX currently does not have RON's.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 148): they have stated F/A will earn an average of 35,000 a year. Also your duty times are way off as SX currently does not have RON's.

35,000 is either a dream or an all out lie. There is no way a Skybus FA will make anywhere near that.

100 hour month x 9.00 an hour x 12 months = $10,800

That means they would have to make $24,200 in commission.

That comes out to $20.17 an hour worth of commission. I don't know what their commission rates are, but that's a lot of sales. I make 15% commission on my planes. That means each flight has to make $534 in sales per hour, since the commissions are shared. On the CMH-Punta flight that means every pax is going to have to spend $7.87 a person. I don't see that happening. Especially, if their airfare wasn't a $10 one. People won't spend $2 on my planes even when their hungry.

I was being generous with the 100 hour work month. If they work a typical 80 hour month it would be even worse.

80 hour month x 9.00 an hour x 12 months = $8,640

That means they would have to make $26,360.

That would be $27.46 an hour of commission. Which is $732 in sales an hour. On the Punta flight that's $10.93 per pax. That's on the assumption every seat is full and everyone buys something. If only 75% of people bought something, which I don't see happening. Then it comes out to $14.58 a pax.

I guess all it takes simple math. Oh wait, people applying for Skybus FA jobs probably can't do math.