Salem, Oregon (SLE) would seem to be an ideal destination for Skybus. Among the attractive features of Salem are as follows:

1. Currently Salem's only commercial passenger service is a twice daily round-trip to Salt Lake City on Delta Connection (SkyWest) using a 40-seat Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-200.

2. Skybus easily could market Salem as serving Portland. Salem is located only about 50 miles from Portland. Depending on where one is coming from or headed to in Portland, the drive from the Salem airport takes as little as an hour or even less.

3. Salem also is about 65 miles from Eugene, so Skybus could market Salem as serving both Portland and Eugene much as it does with Bellingham for Seattle and Vancouver.

4. Aside from Portland and Eugene, Salem's catchment area includes the university town of Corvallis as well as other towns with reasonably sized populations such as Albany, Lebanon, Monmouth, Independence, Dallas, McMinville, and Woodburn, the residents of which would appreciate not having to drive all the way to Portland. The population of the Salem-Keizer area alone is about 140,000.

I checked the Skybus website and there is no indication that Salem is considered as a future city for operations. Any thoughts?

The short answer: no.

And besides, the "successful" Seattle route ends in January.

With fuel prices the way they are, it just doesn't seem likely.

[Edited 2007-11-26 18:44:20]

Would you really want 'em.
They give up "successful routes" like Bellingham for more risky ones they wouldn't dare have flown in the start-up phase.

Therefore: If it is a "successful route" kiss it goodbye.
If it is a bad route, kiss it goodbye anyway.
Lose Lose.

No, Salem is plenty close to Portland for catching a plane.

There is a reason its not served by more service than it has now, and its not cause the other airlines hate the place.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 1): And besides, the "successful" Seattle route ends in January.

there has never been a post from anyone saying Bellingham was successful.


to answer the OTS post:

SX is adding GSO-BUR and keeping OAK, but with their limited number of aircraft and the commitment of an entire aircraft for only 1 turn a day to Oregon versus 3 on the east coast, they are much better off for now not offering more than the 2 west coast cities they are continuing to serve.

Besides, I doubt there are many Western Oregonians and Southwestern Washingtonians that have much interest in spending their vacations in Columbus, Ohio. Or at least not enough people to fill a daily 156 seat aircraft. It is obvious they are not trying to capture a slice of the business market, just your average Joe Sixpack and his family. Skybus has not designed their product to allow for convenient connections through their main hub in CMH which is probably the dumbest idea I have ever heard of.

Does anyone think that once SX gets more a/c, they will open up a Western focus city?

Quoting AirlineBrat (Reply 5): through their main hub in CMH which is probably the dumbest idea I have ever heard of.

Maybe you didn't know they are opening up to 8 focus cities and they do not have any hubs. GSO is the next focus city and PSM is getting P2P to Florida also.

CMH was never supposed to be their "hub" just their HQ much like WN does not have a hub at DAL.

Quoting AirlineBrat (Reply 5): Besides, I doubt there are many Western Oregonians and Southwestern Washingtonians that have much interest in spending their vacations in Columbus, Ohio.

Or Greensboro, North Carolina for that matter!

I suppose if SX were to ever open a focus city in the western United States, SLE would be a possible destination.

I still think SCK might work since it is 40 miles from Sacramento and 50-70 miles from the Bay Area which totals about 6 million people, or more, within a 40-70 mile radius. Not to mention free parking and a very easy terminal to get in and out of.

Quoting Skyjet06 (Reply 8): Or Greensboro, North Carolina for that matter! I suppose if SX were to ever open a focus city in the western United States, SLE would be a possible destination.

Thank you Sky for actually posting something relevant to the discussion. I thought for a minute our SX bashers were going to get the best of us.

SLE seems like it has the right characteristics to be an SX town. Unfortunately they aren't focusing on the long-haul's right now, so SLE-CMH or BUR is probably out of the question.

Now once they get enough aircraft to make a west coast hub (OAK, RNO?), SLE could work out well.

Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 10): Thank you Sky for actually posting something relevant to the discussion. I thought for a minute our SX bashers were going to get the best of us. SLE seems like it has the right characteristics to be an SX town. Unfortunately they aren't focusing on the long-haul's right now, so SLE-CMH or BUR is probably out of the question. Now once they get enough aircraft to make a west coast hub (OAK, RNO?), SLE could work out well.

Lol.

Seriously? Does Skybus spike some peoples drinks with LSD or something?

I think you should look at something. Something very simple. NO ONE WANTS TO SERVE SALEM. Sure its the state capital, but that and $3.25 will get you a gallon of gas. Its an easy drive from PDX which has great service to anywhere you want to go, with a amazing number of non-stops and one stops by WN alone. Alaska Airlines, Frontier, Horizon, and others all have plenty of flights that will get you anywhere you want. Its a no brainer to drive or catch a bus to PDX and just fly from there. Salem wouldn't draw a single sane person from Portland, even for a $10 fare. Which limits SkyBus to that oh so massive Salem to Ohio market. Given that most farming related activities have regional trade-shows n the like I doubt anyone is flying to Ohio to check out the latest tractors or new bug sprays. Likewise, people from Ohio can see farming country at home. If they want to see "poster perfect" Oregon, they will hit PDX for the gorge, or the north coast. Eugene or whatever is closer to the CA boarder for the central to southern coast tourist traps. Seriously even Bend is far more of a happening place as far as tourism and industry goes right now.

Here is a strange and unique idea for Skybus to try if they want to enter the Oregon market... How about just flying to PDX, I'm sure some of the never used counter space can be confiscated from an airline or two, Find some ramp space or maybe even a gate... and bingo they actually get people where they might want to go, instead of finding out that they are not only not in the city they thought they were going to, but not even in the same county.

That said, no way in hell are they coming to Oregon anytime soon unless they are drunk with pure stupidity. Non-stop transcons keep proving to be high risk, low profit for any airline not needing them to connect massive amounts of people to an international flight. Skybus should have stayed awake for the part where most (all) airlines including the number #1 domestic passenger carrier kept finding one-stop transcons pay the bills a hell of alot better. They MIGHT survive if they cut back to only short/medium haul domestic trips and slowly build up to a decent reputation. The way they are going I'm actually amazed they haven't turned off the lights and parked the planes forever. Its not the fares they charge, its the stupid Airport choices with the stupid routes forced by those choices.

SX is servicing OAK already

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 11): They MIGHT survive if they cut back to only short/medium haul domestic trips and slowly build up to a decent reputation.

They announced plans to do that over 2 months ago, announcing BLI and SAN are ending while increasing east coast and midwest flying.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 11): That said, no way in hell are they coming to Oregon anytime soon unless they are drunk with pure stupidity. Non-stop transcons keep proving to be high risk, low profit for any airline not needing them to connect massive amounts of people to an international flight. Skybus should have stayed awake for the part where most (all) airlines including the number #1 domestic passenger carrier kept finding one-stop transcons pay the bills a hell of alot better. They MIGHT survive if they cut back to only short/medium haul domestic trips and slowly build up to a decent reputation. The way they are going I'm actually amazed they haven't turned off the lights and parked the planes forever. Its not the fares they charge, its the stupid Airport choices with the stupid routes forced by those choices.

By quoting me, it seems like you were responding to my post - but did you even read it?

I just said the same thing you did in regards to CMH (or any other nonstop transcon)... And no, I'm not drinking anything spiked with anything.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 11): Here is a strange and unique idea for Skybus to try if they want to enter the Oregon market... How about just flying to PDX, I'm sure some of the never used counter space can be confiscated from an airline or two, Find some ramp space or maybe even a gate... and bingo they actually get people where they might want to go, instead of finding out that they are not only not in the city they thought they were going to, but not even in the same county.

Well said!

Skybus has a huge problem that both Ryanair and Easyjet have come to terms with. That problem is population distribution with an intermodal transport system. Flying from an alternative airport that has train service to the city center works for the passenger. Luton, Gatwick both have service from central london. Amsterdam and most cities all do. Berlin has public transport to the airport, as does airports like Basel wich is ten minutes by bus to the central train station. So accessable catchment may exceed 6,7,8 million in most city pairs. For SX they face a 10% factor in most cities pairs because intermodal options are not available.

Of further not is that SLE's main runway is just over 5800'. SX would need some of the more powerful A319s to get off that runway and make it to CMH, and the number of seats may well play into this as well.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 14):
Skybus has a huge problem that both Ryanair and Easyjet have come to terms with. That problem is population distribution with an intermodal transport system. Flying from an alternative airport that has train service to the city center works for the passenger.



Those airlines are among the most profitable in Europe and serve many cities with no convenient rail links.


Your arguments against Skybus are your opinion, but you should maybe cite a source when claiming they are facts.

ABC actually spun their segment on SX favorably since many large airports a re delay nightmares these days.

Skybus On ABC Nightline 19 Nov (by Itsnotfinals Nov 19 2007 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting BillReid (Reply 14): For SX they face a 10% factor in most cities pairs because intermodal options are not available.

what exatly is this 10% "factor"?

Cities like ARN and MUC have 30 minute high speed rail commutes or 50-90 dollar cab rides to get to their city centers as does LHR, LGW and FRA and MAD, BRU, CDG, HEL, MXP etc etc

[Edited 2007-11-27 18:42:08]

Personally, I think they should start serving UAO. Think about it:

Halfway in between Salem and Portland along I-5, and only 5 miles from Canby and Wilsonville (not to mention the sprawling villiage of Aurora).

The runway was just upgraded to handle airliner-like axle loadings....

Maybe we'd get a full ILS out of the deal, and they'd add a glideslope to our LOC apprach  

It would be perfect for SX, too, as there's none of those pesky jet bridges around anywere. Heck, to really make it feel like an SX airport, there's not even a terminal building   

And for the humorless amongst us, this is said with tongue-in-cheek   

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 12): They announced plans to do that over 2 months ago, announcing BLI and SAN are ending while increasing east coast and midwest flying.

Skybus does not seem to have firmed its business strategy. They started the CMH-SAN only about six months ago and have now announced they will pull out early next year. Their published rationale was that the CMH-SAN required a dedicated aircraft 10 hours per day and that was too much monopolizing of one aircraft for such a small airline.

But why didn't they think of that before they started the route? They said that the loads were good on the CMH-SAN run.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 18): Their published rationale was that the CMH-SAN required a dedicated aircraft 10 hours per day and that was too much monopolizing of one aircraft for such a small airline.

Not to mention that they run the BUR and OAK routes, which are similar resource drains.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 18): Their published rationale was that the CMH-SAN required a dedicated aircraft 10 hours per day and that was too much monopolizing of one aircraft for such a small airline.

9 total aircraft 2 focus cities and 17 total cities served...they did not have enough aircraft to serve 4 western destinations, WN and B6 have recently adjusted their trans-con downward too, but I guess that is different?

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 20): WN and B6 have recently adjusted their trans-con downward too, but I guess that is different?

Since when did B6 decrease their transcon flying? As for WN, they decreased their flying in large part because they have been expanding so fast that they actually need aircraft for shorter hauls. Meanwhile, SX's expansion is nothing like that at WN and their CASM numbers can only be helped by long haul flying.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21): N1120A (Reply 21):Since when did B6 decrease their transcon flying?

they cut one OAK FLL flight not to mention 2 whole cities. yet no one trashed them for it.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21): SX's expansion is nothing like that at WN and their CASM numbers can only be helped by long haul flying.

their RASM goes down on longer flights, as it does with every airline.

Exactly as WN did SX did, not enough aircraft, pull them onto shorter routes.

[Edited 2007-11-27 19:05:38]

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 20): 9 total aircraft 2 focus cities and 17 total cities served...they did not have enough aircraft to serve 4 western destinations, WN and B6 have recently adjusted their trans-con downward too, but I guess that is different?

A lot of schedule adjustments this time of year could also be tied to fewer people flying, which is seasonal every year.

So if they are cutting BLI and SAN because of "fuel costs" and because they were "resource drains", why are they adding GSO-BUR (I give it until the end of summer season or until Skybus stops flying, whichever comes first)?

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 24):
why are they adding GSO-BUR (I give it until the end of summer season or until Skybus stops flying, whichever comes first)?
Maybe those cities are stronger revenue producers and fit into their long term plans?

Why does AA come and go out of DAL or start flights to South America? Why does any airline adjust their city pairs, frequencies and equipment? Profit potential, fiduciary duty, fiscal responsibility?

[Edited 2007-11-27 19:10:25]

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19): Not to mention that they run the BUR and OAK routes, which are similar resource drains.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 20): 9 total aircraft 2 focus cities and 17 total cities served...they did not have enough aircraft to serve 4 western destinations, WN and B6 have recently adjusted their trans-con downward too, but I guess that is different?

What they are doing makes perfect sense if they want to be a shorter-haul Midwest and east coast airline. But if that was their preferred operation mode, why did they start service to the west coast in the first place? They had to hire staff, and set up operations in west coast cities which they are now dismantling after only six months.

I just don't feel that Skybus has a business plan that is as well developed as, for example, Virgin America which seems to be very sure of where it is going.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 26): They had to hire staff, and set up operations in west coast cities which they are now dismantling after only six months

they used outsourced third parties for much of that activity, like they do at most of their "out stations". VX is in the same boat as SX, did anyone see their buy one get one free offer today? VX is still working on their yield mix too.

VX is a great concept and a much different business model than SX.

[Edited 2007-11-27 19:13:21]

I don't really understand the Skybus rationale. The 10 seats at $10 seems gimmicky and their professed policy of avoiding the congested airports makes for some strange destinations.

They fly to Gulfport/Biloxi in place of New Orleans, Daytona Beach instead of Jacksonville, Punta Gorda instead of Ft Myers, and Chicopee instead of Hartford. But since when are New Orleans, Jacksonville, Ft. Myers and Hartford "congested airports"? Sure they might save a small amount on landing fees and overhead by using these out-of-the-way airports, but it still seems weird to me.

They have a good hub in Columbus, but since they do not facilitate connections, CMH is not really a hub at all. How much O&D traffic is there in Columbus and Greensboro anyway? I feel like I must be missing something about where they are going in the future.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 28): I don't really understand the Skybus rationale

well only their customers have to get it , and over 500,000 seem to have gotten it so far.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 28): Sure they might save a small amount on landing fees and overhead by using these out-of-the-way airports, but it still seems weird to

  


RSW is 7.30 per emplaned passenger, PGD is about 55-65% less for instance.

[Edited 2007-11-27 20:26:32]

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 16): Those airlines are among the most profitable in Europe and serve many cities with no convenient rail links. Your arguments against Skybus are your opinion, but you should maybe cite a source when claiming they are facts. ABC actually spun their segment on SX favorably since many large airports a re delay nightmares these days. Skybus On ABC Nightline 19 Nov (by Itsnotfinals Nov 19 2007 in Civil Aviation) Quoting BillReid (Reply 14): For SX they face a 10% factor in most cities pairs because intermodal options are not available. what exatly is this 10% "factor"? Cities like ARN and MUC have 30 minute high speed rail commutes or 50-90 dollar cab rides to get to their city centers as does LHR, LGW and FRA and MAD, BRU, CDG, HEL, MXP etc etc

I do not directly reply to Itsnotfinals because of his well known tactics of taking things out of context. And as he states my arguments are my opinions. The shear stupidity of stating my points are based on my opinion? Like DUH, what is anet, a fact based blog?

Fact: London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris, Brussels, etc, etc, etc all have greater populations that Columbus. If fact I believe London to any EasyJet city has a greater catchment than all SX cities combined!
Fact: International Trains do not directly serve any airports that SX flies too.
Fact: $50-90 cab rides DO NOT play into the low cost market in the EU. Bus service does.
Fact: $50-90 cab rides play into the business market and the high yielding international service. For example: many people attending the Routes conference in Stockholm in September took taxis to the fair grounds at a cost of about $45 each way. The train which only took 9 minutes from the city center was generally not used by Americans even though the cost was only $16 for a four day strip pass.
Fact: $75 cab rides in the USA will destroy ANY low-cost product because if you need a $150 return cab ride then I would strongly suggest the consumer will take the airline that charges $50 ,more on the RT

So to explain 10% is a ratio.
For example the LGA-AMS Easyjet city-pair has 23,000,000 in the combined catchments. Furthermore within 160 miles of AMS live 36,000,000 people. 2,300,000 or 3,600,000 would be 10% factors.

I have flown on more EU low-cost airlines than most can name.
So perhaps if one wishes to argue for or against SX one needs to clearly understand why the Ryanairs and the Easyjets are successful in the EU. And indeed the Easyjet model has struggled at times in Europe.
There are factors that do not apply in the USA such as a multi-modal transportation system or 26 days paid vacation.

In summary, SX doesn't presently have the combined catchments that exists in the EU, they don't have the paid vacations laws in the US that exists in the EU, and finally Americans do not approach travel in a similar manner. To Americans these are undeniable facts that SX will need to overcome and at the end of the day in my humble opinion they probably won't because of flaws in their route structure.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 30):
solid;border-bottom: 1pt #1B2E3F solid;border-left: 1pt #28455E solid;table-layout:fixed;border-Fact: London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris, Brussels, etc, etc, etc all have greater populations that Columbus. If fact I believe London to any EasyJet city has a greater catchment than all SX cities combined!

cachement of European cities is irrelevant to this discussion. G4 serves very small cities and is doing well because they manage yield and frequency for the cachement area they are serving.

SX does not operate in Europe so European cities have no relevance to SX.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 30): Fact:Fact: International Trains do not directly serve any airports that SX flies too. Fact: $50-90 cab rides DO NOT play into the low cost market in the EU. Bus service does.

trains are also very expensive unless you take the local or "Stop Train" as they say in the Netherlands. The US has no train infrastructure except on the east coast, so this comparison is moot also.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 30): So to explain 10% is a ratio. For example the LGA-AMS Easyjet city-pair has 23,000,000 in the combined catchments. Furthermore within 160 miles of AMS live 36,000,000 people. 2,300,000 or 3,600,000 would be 10% factors.

Very irrelevant number.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 30): There are factors that do not apply in the USA such as a multi-modal transportation system or 26 days paid vacation.

this has nothing to do with any US airline business model for domestic service, SX included.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 30): n summary, SX doesn't presently have the combined catchments that exists in the EU,

nor should they, they are a US airline.

CMH has a larger Cachement area than Dublin, Ireland , just in the MSA area, for the record  

[Edited 2007-11-27 20:51:17]

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15): Of further not is that SLE's main runway is just over 5800'. SX would need some of the more powerful A319s to get off that runway and make it to CMH, and the number of seats may well play into this as well.

Hmmm...intermediate stop in the middle, like, say COS? Should allow them to rocket out with all the seats filled...

XT6Wagon, well said!!!!!!

Look at it this way. LCC's work well in Europe because most flights are under 1.5 hours long so being treated like a lower class poor chav scum is relatively acceptable. In the US, the average flight is 2 to 4 hours long..... This is a big continent. BLI to CMH is what? 4 hours? A flight based on annoying overbearing, in your face, advertisements, with a threat of caning you sneak food on the plane combined with flying out of ridiculously inconvenient airports located 100 miles of where I want to go with no opportunities to connect to other flights...... equals an airline that has done everything humanly possible to convince me not to fly WN or most Dinosaurs to get me where I want to go. Even if It saves me $4.20. I would rather take Greyhound and risk having my wallet stolen........

Quoting AirlineBrat (Reply 33): A flight based on annoying overbearing, in your face, advertisements, with a threat of caning you sneak food on the plane combined with flying out of ridiculously inconvenient airports located 100 miles of where I want to go with no opportunities to connect to other flights.

the CEO said on national network television you can bring food on the plane( although they would like it if you do not). and the sales activity is not for the entire flight.

whats is funny is that on UA, DL, US, etc you hear sales announcements about the buy on board which is still an advertisement but that is considered normal on those airlines.


I doubt you have ever flown them based on your comments, but nice guess work!

Quoting AirlineBrat (Reply 5): Besides, I doubt there are many Western Oregonians and Southwestern Washingtonians that have much interest in spending their vacations in Columbus, Ohio.

Quoting Skyjet06 (Reply 8): Or Greensboro, North Carolina for that matter!

I don't know why the focus city P2P concept seems hard to understand. Perhaps it is because it is so radical a departure from the standard US airline (incl. WN). SX is not going to offer connections it seems, therefore they have no reason to connect cities in their network which do not have sufficient O&D traffic to warrant service. If they were to open a city like SLE, they very well might not connect it to CMH or GSO. Instead, SLE would get service to BUR, BLI, OAK as well as potential stations like COS and IWA.

The SX P2P system is very similar to the G4 system. Let me first concede the vacation destination versus middle America cities as focus cities argument, which is not relevant to this discussion. G4 offers no connections. They offer only service between two cities which have sufficient traffic to support that service. SX is doing the same. The reason it seems hard for people on this board to accept is because they are offering service between CMH to various points and GSO to various points instead of LAS to various points and SFB to various points. Ultimately the network planning strategy is very similar -- P2P, no connections, and thus no need to connect the network -- noting that G4 does not have any flights between their focus cities.

If you want to dislike SX, attack their business plan, hope them to fail, then by all means. But please, give some thought to what their strategy is -- even if you think it is bad strategy -- before just dashing off posts like "who in the heck from city XYZ would want to go to Columbus???"

Quoting JetBlueGuy2006 (Reply 6): Does anyone think that once SX gets more a/c, they will open up a Western focus city?

Never. They have cut transcon, and it's doubtful they will be around long enough to get that far. Fuel costs are killing all the airlines and eventually we'll see those wonderful $10 fares go away and they will have to start pricing realistically if they expect to survive, but it just isn't going to happen.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 16): Those airlines are among the most profitable in Europe and serve many cities with no convenient rail links.

And despite it's profitability and # of pax, Ryanair is also one of the most loathed airlines in Europe among business travellers, who are the ones that really pay an airlines bills. As stated by others in this thread, distant airports and lack of public transportation in the U.S. will cause this business model to fail. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 35): If you want to dislike SX, attack their business plan, hope them to fail, then by all means. But please, give some thought to what their strategy is -- even if you think it is bad strategy -- before just dashing off posts like "who in the heck from city XYZ would want to go to Columbus???"

Sorry, you are right. I think my greatest concern is that my preferred carriers may want to consider some of the ideas that are part of SX's business plan because they are cost effective.

The main issue that caught my attention is how difficult SX has made it to make a connection in CMH. So the only reason I would consider flying the airline would be rare occurrence that the University of Oregon played Ohio State in a sporting match.

[Edited 2007-11-28 07:56:16]

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 36): those wonderful $10 fares go away

They only have 10 seats for 10 dollars

fares to BUR are running 75 -390 dollars one way for December for instance.

fares to PSM are running 35-135 dollars one way for December

fares to PGD are running 75-300 dollars one way for December

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 36): pricing realistically if they expect to survive, but it just isn't going to happen.

see above

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 36): loathed airlines in Europe among business travellers,

then don't fly them, they are not targeting that demographic. In fact with the bad economy, SX might just do better than anticipated since consumers are having a very bad time of it right now with the credit crunch and mortgage meltdown.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 36): distant airports and lack of public transportation in the U.S. will cause this business model to fail. It's not a matter of if, but when.

that is also in their favor right now as many large airports are suffering from massive delays and getting bad press. I would rather fly into SWF than EWR any day after the experiences I have had at EWR and JFK recently.

Quoting AirlineBrat (Reply 37): The main issue that caught my attention is how difficult SX has made it to make a connection in CMH

they do not want you to make a connection, they are a P2P airline only.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 38): they do not want you to make a connection, they are a P2P airline only.

I haven't gotten the impression that they *don't want* people to connect there, they just aren't putting the pieces in place to make it convenient.

If it means another ticket sold, my guess is that SX is more than welcomes people changing planes in CMH.

Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 39): I haven't gotten the impression that they *don't want* people to connect there, they just aren't putting the pieces in place to make it convenient.

Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 39): If it means another ticket sold, my guess is that SX is more than welcomes people changing planes in CMH.

You managed to completely contradict yourself through quibbling about semantics right there. They are not going to facilitate connections, but if you buy a second ticket and try to do it yourself, then more power to you.

Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 40): if you buy a second ticket and try to do it yourself, then more power to you.

  

That is what I meant to say  

I don't think they will. Too many people know where Salem, OR is.

 

Sorry...I had to.

I didnt want to start a new thread and will just ask a random question here to SX fans and haters. Does SX do anything new when it opens a new route? Is there much fanfare? Goodies? Water salute, etc.?

Thanks,
A.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 22): their RASM goes down on longer flights, as it does with every airline.

Of course it does, which is why a blend of short, medium and longer hauls makes an optimum schedule. You keep CASM down and RASM up. Further, SX's alleged plan cares little about RASM

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 25): Why does AA come and go out of DAL or start flights to South America?

AA at DAL had nothing to do with an attempt to make money. It was an attempt to dig into WN's margins, which didn't work. South America, on the other hand, is a market that AA dominates and brings in massive yields.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 25): Maybe those cities are stronger revenue producers and fit into their long term plans?

No one will disagree that BUR is going to produce revenues. To GSO, however, is a stretch.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 29): well only their customers have to get it , and over 500,000 seem to have gotten it so far.

But will their accountants? They are trying to work on an ancillary revenue model, which means they need high load factors and passengers spending money on their aircraft. By concentrating on shorter haul markets in the US, you fly in the face of that thinking.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 31): SX does not operate in Europe so European cities have no relevance to SX.

They absolutely do. Cities of a certain size generate a certain demand for air travel.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 31): G4 serves very small cities and is doing well because they manage yield and frequency for the cachement area they are serving.

All arguments about G4's service aside, there is a big difference between where they are operating from and where SX is. Allegiant's main base is Las Vegas, which is the second largest O&D airport in the US after LAX and is so almost solely on tourism. As such, they are perfectly positioned to pull in low buck tourist traffic. SX operates from Columbus, which can't come close to Las Vegas' numbers.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 32): Hmmm...intermediate stop in the middle, like, say COS? Should allow them to rocket out with all the seats filled...

That wouldn't exactly fit their model.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 38): Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 36): those wonderful $10 fares go away They only have 10 seats for 10 dollars fares to BUR are running 75 -390 dollars one way for December for instance. fares to PSM are running 35-135 dollars one way for December

..fares to SWF are still $10-$55 with the majority $35...

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 28): I don't really understand the Skybus rationale. The 10 seats at $10 seems gimmicky and their professed policy of avoiding the congested airports makes for some strange destinations.

It appears that Itsnotfinals doesn't understand your statement either based on his point.
You are right they fly to strange points and the risk is huge based on low demand.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 38): Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 36): loathed airlines in Europe among business travellers, then don't fly them, they are not targeting that demographic. In fact with the bad economy, SX might just do better than anticipated since consumers are having a very bad time of it right now with the credit crunch and mortgage meltdown.

Out of context. Business travelors don't fly where SX does. So try writing something that makes sense.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 16): Those airlines are among the most profitable in Europe and serve many cities with no convenient rail links.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 31): SX does not operate in Europe so European cities have no relevance to SX.

So lets see, which are you standing by this time? You referenced European airlines and cities now you say it is not relevent. I guess that makes your comment a paradox and irrevelent.

Why does Itsnotfinals consistantly argue for the sake of argueing? Apparently itsnotfinals is the only a.netter with a correct point of view. If it wasn't for the poor people who have risked so much investing carreers and funds into SX as well as the communities I would be wishing them to die a slow and painful death just to watch you eat crow.

[Edited 2007-11-28 14:06:51]

Quoting PacNWJet (Thread starter): 2. Skybus easily could market Salem as serving Portland. Salem is located only about 50 miles from Portland. Depending on where one is coming from or headed to in Portland, the drive from the Salem airport takes as little as an hour or even less.

I would be very interested to find out who in their right mind would fly from Salem to Portland via commercial airline. By the time you check in, go through security and arrive at the gate 30 minutes prior, you would have driven to any part of Portland or Salem.