Quoting BillReid (Reply 46): You are right they fly to strange points and the risk is huge based on low demand.

The announcement of destinations such as PSM and GSO was a little concerning, as they don't bring to mind cities that would warrant numerous nonstop destinations. Time will tell... I would envision GYY and COS as better long term options, particularly for connections but also for O&D draw.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 48): Out of context. Business travelors don't fly where SX does. So try writing something that makes sense.

I think that was his point. SX isn't going after the business traveler. Someone posted that the ULCC's of Europe are amond the most loathed carriers over there, and his point was that it doesn't matter, because SX isn't targeting the business traveler. Maybe I'm missing something???

-Dave

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 51): I think that was his point. SX isn't going after the business traveler. Someone posted that the ULCC's of Europe are amond the most loathed carriers over there, and his point was that it doesn't matter, because SX isn't targeting the business traveler. Maybe I'm missing something???

The EU LCCs also have multiple bases and mostly fly much shorter ranged flights to places with tons of O&D traffic and excess demand. CMH is not exactly an O&D hotbed.

Quoting Flysherwood (Reply 50): 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. Yeah sure

Oops, I guess I chose the wrong wording in my original post. When I stated that Skybus could market Salem as serving Portland what I meant was that Skybus could say that it flies to "Portland" but the airport utilized for those flights would be Salem, just as Skybus says that it flies to "Seattle" when in fact it uses the Bellingham airport (ditto for "Boston" being served by Portsmouth). I did not mean to imply that Salem would serve as a destination for flights from Portland. Sorry for the confusion.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 52): The EU LCCs also have multiple bases and mostly fly much shorter ranged flights to places with tons of O&D traffic and excess demand. CMH is not exactly an O&D hotbed.

that is why SX is opening up to 8 focus cities. CMH is not their only O&D market, and has never been planned to be.

It's interesting to see that SX has done well from a LF factor perspective and adding frequencies already (going to 2 daily PGD for instance) in just 6 months

GSO is coming online next , so there are up to 6 more as disclosed in their original comments.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 61): It's interesting to see that SX has done well from a LF factor perspective and adding frequencies already (going to 2 daily PGD for instance) in just 6 months

Sorry, please base this on facts.
Done well? Based on what? Please provide actual financials, something that proves success. The assumptions are nothing short of rediculous.
Please reference these great accomplishments against the reductions and the costs involved in building and dumping cities. For once use facts not LF which could include 92 free tickets per flight..
I want P&L not head count.

I could careless either way if SX wins or loses. I do have a great distaste for those who cannot see the other side of the coin and insist this wanna-be is making millions while dumping cities.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 62): Sorry, please base this on facts.

fact: they added another flight, if the first one was doing so badly why add another one?

Quoting BillReid (Reply 62): I want P&L not head count.

The P&L is not published, although by some comments here you would think their entire business plan was public knowledge

[Edited 2007-11-28 17:04:22]

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 61): It's interesting to see that SX has done well from a LF factor perspective and adding frequencies already (going to 2 daily PGD for instance) in just 6 months

This one factor means nothing if you are filling the planes at costs that do not meat your expenditures! Come on that is financials 101!

Quoting BillReid (Reply 62): I could careless either way if SX wins or loses.

      You spend as much time hating SX as itsnotfinals spend loving it. At least be honest about your feelings toward SX. For whatever reason, you want them to fail and you want them to fail badly and the quicker the better.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 64): This one factor means nothing if you are filling the planes at costs that do not meat your expenditures! Come on that is financials 101!

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 61): LF factor perspective

is my quote, it doesn't say anything about LF = Income. We all know the Indy Air and now the Express Jet story.  

It was a comment about the only thing we do know which is they are having LF's that are industry average right from the start.

[Edited 2007-11-28 18:26:29]

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 61): It's interesting to see that SX has done well from a LF factor perspective

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 66): is my quote, it doesn't say anything about LF = Income.

You certainly imply it though.

[

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 67): You certainly imply it though.

actually I didn't. you can however read the link from SX's 8 minute video segment on ABC nightline last week where te CFO implies that average fares are 90 to 100 dollars each way before ancillary sales though  

Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 65): You spend as much time hating SX as itsnotfinals spend loving it. At least be honest about your feelings toward SX. For whatever reason, you want them to fail and you want them to fail badly and the quicker the better.

Actually its not SX that I hate. Its any poster that has silly arguments that I hate. Saying that an airline is doing well without proof goes against everything I believe in. I have asked itsnotfinals to prove his statements on how darn well they are doing and he just slices and dices what others say. I have no vested interested the success or failure of SX.

If you take a neutral point on the success/failure of SX you cannot consider the comments of Itsnotfinals as he most likely is employed by them or has some sort of relationship with them of which he has indeed never refuted.

I have stated facts that no SX supporter can refute.
For example: The addition of CMH-PGT capacity requires 170% market stimulation, is this logical in a tertiary airport without effective ground transport.
Additionally, any draw down of start-up cities as has been done out west is a sign of a weak initial plan that has been deserted. I do not believe any airline drops successful routes in a start-up mode.

So, do not conclude that I am a SX hater, but rather I am a BS hater who likes to get the Bs'ers shooting crap and making a fool of themselves like itsnotfinals does consistantly because he has a inability to adapt. He is always right and the rest of the world are always wrong unless they agree with him.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 69):
Its any poster that has silly arguments that I hate.
So let me get this straigtht, I post links to real news stories, provide factual cross-referenced data points and you have never posted even 1 link to a "fact"

?? ??

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

Record Growth At CMH Continues (by Itsnotfinals Nov 28 2007 in Civil Aviation)

Skybus Closes Additional Financing (by Itsnotfinals Nov 14 2007 in Civil Aviation)


All fact based, You can certainly have an opinion and we all know what it is.

[Edited 2007-11-29 07:01:39]

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 70): Its any poster that has silly arguments that I hate. So let me get this straigtht, I post links to real news stories, provide factual cross-referenced data points and you have never posted even 1 link to a "fact"

So let me get this straight..... ABC is your source, wow.
So ABC is your determing factor on whether SX will succeed?

I get calls from the press and I do not use them for my info, they come to me for info.
My daughter likes your perspective watch TV and know everything...

I get my info based on hard data not a reporter that has spent three hours on a project with a deadline.
I'm sorry, if I had to rely on the TV project as the support for my income I would be in great danger professionally.

Itsnotfinals did not deny having a fudiciary relationship with SX, therefore I would say his opinions based on things like ABC TV, and anything he can take out of contect as being weak and not having substance.

Even as a SX employee or contractor Itsnotfinals has avoided 170% stimulation question.
Why? Please simply answer the question with facts not reference to ABC news.

[Edited 2007-11-29 07:57:28]

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 68): [ Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 67): You certainly imply it though. actually I didn't. you can however read the link from SX's 8 minute video segment on ABC nightline last week where te CFO implies that average fares are 90 to 100 dollars each way before ancillary sales though

Actually I saw it and the word "fluff" comes to mind. Also we do not know if the ancillary sales are $2.00 or $200.00 per flight.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 71): I get my info based on hard data not a reporter that has spent three hours on a project with a deadline.

Then why can you never post a link or offical information to prove your opinion?

When you need to insult others in reply it generally indicates there are not facts to counter with at all.

You are entitled to your opinion.

[Edited 2007-11-29 08:32:57]

Quoting BillReid (Reply 71): on hard data

SX does not release any data, so you are right, trying to figure anything out is hard  

Quoting BillReid (Reply 71): deny having a fudiciary relationship with SX

I don't work for Skybus, do you work for the RSW over-priced airport as others have implied?

Quoting BillReid (Reply 71): Please simply answer the question with facts not reference to ABC news

the stimulation question has been answered, it's call 77% LF with 90 dollar average fares to Florida, no one wants to pay 7.30 per en-planed passenger at RSW or 70 dollars a sq foot for counter space when they can go to PGD and save 100,000's of dollars a year and pass that on to passengers, further stimulating the market.

If the market wasn't stimulated why would SX add another flight to PGD and keep flling them up?

[Edited 2007-11-29 08:38:57]

I wonder if perhaps we can get past some of the competitive posting and back to the central question of this thread. But first, let me say for the record that I have no opinion one way or another towards Skybus. My interest in this topic is purely curiosity. I work in Salem and live in the Willamette Valley, so the question of commercial flights into Salem is simply one of curiosity, not because I have a personal opinion or would even ever fly Skybus (maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't).

O.K., back to the topic at hand. As many astute A.netters have noted, one reason the Ryanair model works in Europe is because of the well-developed system of ground transportation. Thus, many Europeans do not mind flying into an alternate airport because they can take convenient ground transportation into the city that really is their destination. Since the United States for the most part lacks this sort of ground transportation infrastructure Skybus does not have much of a selling point to offer cheap tickets to, say, Bellingham unless passengers can get from Bellingham to Seattle in a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost (which they can't for the most part).

So, Skybus would seem to need to find other reasons to entice passengers to alternate airports. I would think three of the main reasons would be: 1. The alternate airport serves a large catchment area; 2. The main airport in the metropolitan area being served is inconvenient for a sizable number of residents of the area; 3. There are attractive destinations for flights from the alternate airport.

It seems to me that Salem already fulfils the first two criteria:

1. The population of the Willamette Valley (Salem to Eugene and surrounding towns) approaches half a million. Combined with Portland's metropolitan population of 1 million that is a rather large population that could be served.

2. Portland International Airport (PDX) is located at the very farthest northeast corner of Portland. Many people in the Willamette Valley, as well as people in the southern suburbs of Portland, would appreaciate not having to battle the freeways to drive all the way to PDX.

So Salem would seem to offer a good alternative to Portland for a fairly large number of people.

This then leads us to the third criterion - destinations from Salem. Here Skybus is severely lacking. As many posters have noted, there is not much reason for anyone from northwest Oregon to want to fly to Columbus, Ohio or Greensboro, North Carolina. So in order to make Salem work Skybus would have to pick destination cities that people from northwest Oregon actually want to go to. I would think the two destinations that would have the highest chance of success would be Las Vegas and Orange County (Disneyland, etc.). Other than those two cities it is hard to imagine many other destinations that would support a Skybus type of operation from Salem. (As I noted in my initial post, Delta Connection operates two CRJ roundtrips from Salem to Salt Lake City, but that is a whole different type of operation.)

Quoting BillReid (Reply 69): I have stated facts that no SX supporter can refute.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 69): I do not believe any airline drops successful routes in a start-up mode.

I'm just pointing this out.

  

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 74): the stimulation question has been answered, it's call 77% LF with 90 dollar average fares to Florida, no one wants to pay 7.30 per en-planed passenger at RSW or 70 dollars a sq foot for counter space when they can go to PGD and save 100,000's of dollars a year and pass that on to passengers, further stimulating the market. If the market wasn't stimulated why would SX add another flight to PGD and keep flling them up?

Itsnotfinals, I agree with you, it seems that the stimulation is working. However, where are those numbers (7.30/pass, $70/sq ft) from? I may've missed it earlier in the discussion...

Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 75): 2. Portland International Airport (PDX) is located at the very farthest northeast corner of Portland. Many people in the Willamette Valley, as well as people in the southern suburbs of Portland, would appreaciate not having to battle the freeways to drive all the way to PDX.

Oh for the love of God, have you even BEEN in Portland? I know all the evils of Portland's horrid traffic, and yet I don't know ANYONE that thinks of themselves as living in "Portland" willing to drive to Salem to catch a plane when PDX is right there. I guess you are right though, they will be willing to spend the extra time, money, effort just to avoid the nice clean and new terminals at PDX.

You might also note that Eugene has more than decent air service for its size, also reducing Salem as a place anyone wants to go to grab a plane.

Still remains that PDX has the space for Airlines wanting to enter, it has reasonable fees, and it has the vast majority of ALL air travel in Oregon and SW Washington.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 77):

Instead of your just downright rude reply, perhaps you could have more thoughtfully read his post? If you had, you would have recognized that he was discussing the convenience of SLE for those living in and around Salem. He never once mentioned that someone living in Portland itsef would choose SLE over PDX.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 77): Oh for the love of God, have you even BEEN in Portland? I know all the evils of Portland's horrid traffic, and yet I don't know ANYONE that thinks of themselves as living in "Portland" willing to drive to Salem to catch a plane when PDX is right there. I guess you are right though, they will be willing to spend the extra time, money, effort just to avoid the nice clean and new terminals at PDX.

It's also a very expensive airport to fly out of, not because of ticket prices, but because of intangibles like transportation. If you don't live along the MAX line, you have to make some expensive choices, like drive to the airport and park (very spendy), or catch a curbside airport shuttle (fairly cheap if you live close to the airport, but it can be very expensive if you live out in the exurbs, like my wife and I. $100 for a round trip the last time we priced this option out). There are also scheduled airport shuttles from communities that are even farther out, like Woodburn and Albany...I have no idea how much that option is, as we don't live that far out ourselves   A cab ride would be no cheaper of an option...

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 77): You might also note that Eugene has more than decent air service for its size, also reducing Salem as a place anyone wants to go to grab a plane.

Yup, RJ's out the Kazoo   I think the only time they ever see mainline aircraft is when U of O charters one...

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 61): that is why SX is opening up to 8 focus cities.

"Up to?" Where are those 8? What 8 are they? If they are markets like CMH and GSO, they need to rethink that.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 61): GSO is coming online next , so there are up to 6 more as disclosed in their original comments.

Again with the "up to."

Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 75): 2. Portland International Airport (PDX) is located at the very farthest northeast corner of Portland. Many people in the Willamette Valley, as well as people in the southern suburbs of Portland, would appreaciate not having to battle the freeways to drive all the way to PDX.

Except, of course, that Portland has excellent public transport, to which PDX is directly linked.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 80): Except, of course, that Portland has excellent public transport, to which PDX is directly linked.

Only if you live in Portland, Hillsboro, Gresham, or Beaverton. The public transit gets very sketchy out side of those areas.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 79): It's also a very expensive airport to fly out of

Yah, not as much cheap long-term parking as they need, or the private parking companies. One option if you are a bit of a risk taker is the lots at some of the transit centers. However the point is that trying to convince anyone from Portland that Salem is a alternative for air transport is going to be rather close to the same as convincing them that flying coast to coast with a polar bear wandering around the back galley is a good idea.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 79): Yup, RJ's out the Kazoo I think the only time they ever see mainline aircraft is when U of O charters one...

Someone here said that the only RJ out of Salem currently is a single delta flight so... Clearly the market has spoken here. I certainly know Travelocity and Orbitz are forever trying to make my take a turboprop to Eugene, then another turboprop to the destination. Never seen a single flight stopping off in Salem.

Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 78): Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 77): Instead of your just downright rude reply, perhaps you could have more thoughtfully read his post? If you had, you would have recognized that he was discussing the convenience of SLE for those living in and around Salem. He never once mentioned that someone living in Portland itsef would choose SLE over PDX.

Yes, I was rude to stop all over your love fest for an airport well south of Portland that currently sees nearly no service at all. The market speaks, and the market so far has painted a HUGE sign saying PDX = money, Salem = clean tumbleweeds out of the intakes before takeoff.

Perhaps instead of looking at it like Salem is 50miles from "Portland", you should be looking at it like Salem is 60 miles from PDX, Vancouver is 2-10miles from PDX, etc. Its only 1/2 an hour trip for my Sister or Dad who live north of Vancouver, WA to get to PDX. They would be lucky to get to the Salem airport in 2hours. What airline is going to automatically throw away the kind of population that lives close to PDX and impossibly far from Salem.

You might have a point if the people were driving 60+ miles for some good reason. I've driven 200 miles when an airport was closer, but the math worked out, due to better flights from airports with far more frequency and airline choice. Instead you are claiming the exact opposite, that a a majority of the people will drive longer to take a single airline on a single flight to OHIO. Great, flys in the face of every economic theory ever known, but hey what do they know.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 77): Oh for the love of God, have you even BEEN in Portland? I know all the evils of Portland's horrid traffic, and yet I don't know ANYONE that thinks of themselves as living in "Portland" willing to drive to Salem to catch a plane when PDX is right there. I guess you are right though, they will be willing to spend the extra time, money, effort just to avoid the nice clean and new terminals at PDX.

You know, I have been very civil in this discuission, so I don't know what I did to deserve such a mean-spirited reply. Yes, of course I have been to Portland. I have lived in the Willamette Valley for 14 years and have visited family in Portland for 30 years before I moved to Oregon. So in answer to your question, yes, I have been to Portland.

O.K., now moving on to the subject of the message, as other people have noted, despite mass transport from some parts of the Portland metropolitan area the only other option is to drive to PDX. If you live, for example, in Tualatin that can take as much as 45 minutes and even more with traffic. In that same amount of time you could drive to Salem and park at the Salem airport for an unlimited amount of time for free. For anything south of the I-5/I-205 interchange from Tualatin to Eugene the Salem airport is going to be more convenient. If Skybus flew to a popular destination such as Las Vegas that's a whole mess of people who would love not having to drive all the way to PDX, pay for parking at PDX, stand in long check-in lines at PDX, go through long security lines at PDX, etc. As a matter of fact, I bet there are plenty of people who live in Tigard, Beaverton, Lake Oswego, Gladstone, Milwaukie, Tualatin, and even parts of Portland proper who would just as soon not grapple with pay-for-parking and long check-in and security lines at PDX.

Would I fly out of Salem? It depends on where the flights went. I live 30 minutes from Salem by car and don't like driving to PDX where I have to pay for parking and stand in long lines. If there were flights from Salem to places I wanted to go to at reasonable fares, you bet I would.

Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 83): Would I fly out of Salem? It depends on where the flights went. I live 30 minutes from Salem by car and don't like driving to PDX where I have to pay for parking and stand in long lines. If there were flights from Salem to places I wanted to go to at reasonable fares, you bet I would.

Funny, I live in an exurb just out side the Portland urban growth boundary (or "urban destruction" boundary as my wife and I like to call it-everything inside gets destroyed by being converted to totally urban development   ). We have a local cable company, and every once in a while we see a commercial inviting us to come fly out of Salem for those very reasons...tempting thought!

Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 83): If Skybus flew to a popular destination such as Las Vegas that's a whole mess of people who would love not having to drive all the way to PDX,

Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 83): Would I fly out of Salem? It depends on where the flights went. I live 30 minutes from Salem by car and don't like driving to PDX where I have to pay for parking and stand in long lines. If there were flights from Salem to places I wanted to go to at reasonable fares, you bet I would.

EUG is close enough for the SLE folks that dont want to "wait" at PDX. Also note I know many people that will even travel to PDX for fares, even people willing to come from MFR to PDX because they think they are saving, well not with gas prices!

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 79): Yup, RJ's out the Kazoo Smile I think the only time they ever see mainline aircraft is when U of O charters one...

Current Cities being served and Equip.
LAS - CRJ/CR9(US) 3 days / MD83(G4) 2 days
SEA - DH4(QX) daily
PDX - DH8(QX) / EMB2(UA) daily
DEN - CRJ7(UA) daily
PHX - CRJ/CR9(US) daily
LAX - DH4(QX) / ERJ(XE for DL) daily
SLC - CRJ / ERJ(XE for DL) daily
RDM/LAX - DH4(QX) daily
SFO - CRJ/CR7(UA) daily

I think I got them all. There is more than just RJ's     

Quoting Flyboy97502 (Reply 85): think I got them all. There is more than just RJ's

Okay, so I missed all the dash 8's, a Brasilia, and the Mad Dog that Allegiant sends (not even daily!)...   

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 74): SX does not release any data, so you are right, trying to figure anything out is hard Quoting BillReid (Reply 71): deny having a fudiciary relationship with SX I don't work for Skybus, do you work for the RSW over-priced airport as others have implied? Quoting BillReid (Reply 71): Please simply answer the question with facts not reference to ABC news the stimulation question has been answered, it's call 77% LF with 90 dollar average fares to Florida, no one wants to pay 7.30 per en-planed passenger at RSW or 70 dollars a sq foot for counter space when they can go to PGD and save 100,000's of dollars a year and pass that on to passengers, further stimulating the market.

This is it.
I will post to the moderators that ITSNOTFINALS needs to be suspended from posting.
I do not work for RSW or ever will, I do however know that the cost per enplanement is not $7.30 per enplaned pax.
NOT EVEN CLOSE. Stating "over-priced" is malicitios when false info is provided.
Under Florida law, all airport data is public property where any resident of Florida can request any document from any govermental agency. Its called the sunshine law.
RSW is in the area of $1 lower than stated for FY07

I am shocked that anyone would throw out such malicious wrong information.
The overpriced comment should be factually put into context. For instance what is the per passenger cost at CMH?
I do not know but based on the waether conditions and the requirements of OHIO I would suggest they may be higher at CMH.

[Edited 2007-11-29 19:14:02]

Quoting BillReid (Reply 92):
is not $7.30 per enplaned pax.
NOT EVEN CLOSE. Stating "over-priced" is malicitios when false info is provided.


it is offically 7.29 for the most recently publically posted numbers:


See color graph on page 6

http://www.flylcpa.com/pdfs/stats/Fi...ponentUnitFinancialReport_2006.pdf

"It is typical for the airline industry to measure their costs by its cost per enplaned passenger. Airports use
this as a management tool to assess how well they are doing compared to the industry and
how effective they are in managing the airport. The following chart shows the cost per
enplanement at Southwest Florida International Airport over the past 10 fiscal years. In
2006, the cost per enplanement increased due to an increase in debt service and the first full
year of operations of the Midfield Terminal."



You have been asking for a month how PGD can stimulate passenger numbers form Central Ohio, SX can provide much cheaper airfares of at least 5 dollars per ticket to Florida in part because of this fact.

CMH for instance is only 4.99, RSW is 46% more expensive than it's similar sized counter part. That is a big expense when airlines are trying to cut fares, and while that price might not be over-priced for a legacy, it is over-priced for this business model, it is relative.

These are published facts from the airport boards.

this adds up into the mid-six figures in savings alone per year with 2 frequencies per day.



http://www.columbusairports.com/news...etters/Airspace/2006-Summer-AS.pdf

[Edited 2007-11-29 19:43:49]

http://www.flylcpa.com/rsw/news/2007...releases/PR0721_BudgetProposal.php

%u201CDespite a small increase in air carrier operating costs, the airlines worked constructively with airport staff to determine growth projections and were pleased with the results. We have made a concerted effort to control expenses and are able to offset some of the cost to maintain and support the airport operations with a nearly 7 percent reduction in landing fees,%u201D said Robert M. Ball, A.A.E, executive director of the Lee County Port Authority.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 92): RSW is in the area of $1 lower than stated for FY07

the official budget does not call for a reduction of 1 dollar, landing fees are only part of the cost of enplaned passengers and that is going down only 7% , while other costs are steady. even if landing fees were the only cost in enplaned passengers, that would only be a reduction to 6.77.

Cities like PGD and Salem Oregon, PSM etc are much more competitive for ULCC's since 3-4 dollars less per ticket paid to the airport is just another expense passed onto the customer.

PGD and cities like Salem also do not have XF (Passenger Facility Charges) which additionally saves the consumer money.

These lower price can drive dramatic stimulation to an city pair. A great example is GSO-CMH which went from 16 Passengers a day on average to 130 a day now, an increase of 812% in just a few years.

http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2007/10/29/story3.html

"Three years ago, for example, 16 people a day flew from PTI to Columbus via connections. With Skybus, more than 130 are flying daily. "

Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 83): If Skybus flew to a popular destination such as Las Vegas that's a whole mess of people who would love not having to drive all the way to PDX, pay for parking at PDX, stand in long check-in lines at PDX, go through long security lines at PDX, etc.

The challenge comes when AS/QX, WN, US, etc lower fares to compete. People often choose to go with the known commodity rather than try the unknown carrier at an unknown airport with unknown policies. By "unknown", I mean different or new.

I think it's great to see carriers trying new airports. Even flying SEA-LGB is so much easier than SEA-LAX or SEA-SNA, so I would be open to trying any new airport in my area. I just wonder how successful it would be in the case of Salem?

-Dave

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 96): By "unknown", I mean different or new.

that's is what is smart about G4 and SX, they serve airports those carriers will most likely not start service to at least in the short term.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 93): Quoting BillReid (Reply 92): is not $7.30 per enplaned pax. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Stating "over-priced" is malicitios when false info is provided. it is offically 7.29 for the most recently publically posted numbers:

Brilliant. You are using 2005/2006 data to call an airport overpriced.

Why don't you put things into context and use publically posted rates and fees for FY2008? If you could find the annual report from 2006, you should be able to find the rates and fees for FY2008 for every FLA airport. And after that why don't you request the Punta Gorda package offered with rates and fees, because under the Florida Sunshine Law they'll fax it over to you if you just ask.

Yes, required under FLA law.

While your at it, why not do St. Augustine as well. Then you could do a favor to all those who would like SX flights. They will then have a baseline for fees and incentives to know exactly what the SXers demand from an airport.

This would be far more constructive than quoting a two year old annual report that isn't relevant to where SX flies.

As has been pointed out countless times and ignored by the SX koolaid drinkers, the Allegiant business model and the Skybus model are not the same - not even remotely close. I've seen posts that say SX's target audience is leisure. Then it was said that it was not leisure. G4 flies vacation packagers for the most part. They fly to airports in or very close to the cities they say they fly to. They may not be bustling big city airports, but they are established airports that, with very few exceptions, already have existing service by other airlines. Also, they rarely offer daily service because they know and understand the needs of their pax and the days they need to fly. To compare the two business models is simply wrong and shows a lack of understanding of the difference. It isn't going to help the argument to compare the two. Allegiant would blow Skybus out of the water if they flew head to head, which isn't likely to happen, because the SX people know that.

Quoting BillReid Brilliant. You are using 2005/2006 data to call an airport overpriced.




You might want to look again, I posted the 2008 budget proposal numbers, the lowest RSW Cost per enplaned passenger could be is 7.00 according to the rather cryptic wording of their budget proposal. BUT the actual airport direct said on July 1, 2007:

"We're anticipating with our new budget our cost per enplaned passenger will be $7.20."

http://www.allbusiness.com/operation...hipping-air-freight/4492579-1.html



Of course if you think it is different please post the link, you have yet to ever actually post a factual source to any of your comments, which is fine since they are your opinion.

Also, if you would have bothered to read the budget you would see that the total cost per enplaned passenger is variable until the year end when the airport provides a pro-rated refund or additional assessment which impacts the final cost. Since 2007 is not over, the final number is not available to anyone at the moment.

page 5:

"The agreement with the airlines uses a residual rate setting methodology, Each year actual revenues and expenses are compared to budget. Differences between actual budget are returned to the airlines in the form of a refund"

the refund in 2006 was a whopping 318.000, but that still changes the Cost per emplaned passenger. In this case that refund "lowered" the cost to 7.29.





http://www.flylcpa.com/rsw/news/2007...releases/PR0721_BudgetProposal.php

this information is the most current:

"Despite a small increase in air carrier operating costs, the airlines worked constructively with airport staff to determine growth projections and were pleased with the results. We have made a concerted effort to control expenses and are able to offset some of the cost to maintain and support the airport operations with a nearly 7 percent reduction in landing fees said ROBERT M BALL , executive director of the Lee County Port Authority.


What's interesting is that FLL can work with SX but RSW didn't bother. Because of RSW's inability to be competitive that is the beauty of the US business system they went to PGD, and that is allowing SX to grow their markey penetration within the SW Florida Market place by over 50% in just 6 months.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 98):
because under the Florida Sunshine Law they'll fax it over to you if you just ask.


Maybe since you are in the Netherlands you don't realize that in the United States every public agency and company must disclose budgets and income, it's not just the "Sunshine Law" you keep mentioning. By the way, this is all on the internet these days, there is no reason to get a fax.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 99):
I've seen posts that say SX's target audience is leisure. Then it was said that it was not leisure. G4 flies vacation packagers for the most part.

It's good to see you acknowledging that ULCC's are a viable business model.

[Edited 2007-12-01 13:28:44]

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 100): It's good to see you acknowledging that ULCC's are a viable business model.

I think he is stating the G4 business model is a sound one, not sure what if anything he is saying about SX!

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 101): think he is stating the G4 business model is a sound one, not sure what if anything he is saying about SX!

they actually have a more difficult business model to execute is my point, and they do it very well.

You should see all the repositioning of empty non-revenue producing flights they have to do with their gas-guzzing MD-80's to make their mix of scheduled, charter and casino flying work,yet they still make a profit. SX doesn't even have that headache.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 101): I think he is stating the G4 business model is a sound one, not sure what if anything he is saying about SX!

IMO, G4 is not an ULCC. They have a very specific target demographic and they market it as such. Since they've expanded beyond their tradition LAS base, they may be looking at less vacation oriented business, but by and large, most of their service is tied to vacation package travellers, which is not the case with SX. They may have low fares, but they do not sell themselves in the same light as does SX, or the ULCC's in Europe and elsewhere. Perhaps a G4 employee can provide figures, but I doubt they get a tremendous amount of business pax, especially when they do not offer daily service on the vast majority of their routes, something business travellers demand (frequency).

Quoting BillReid (Reply 104): Please provide the website that shows the incentive package for SX at GSO, PGT, FLL, CMH, etc etc. Obviously, you must have very special access because I cannot find those docs. OK I realize the laws differ from state to state, so I would be happy with only FLA airports so I can compare.

Why don't you look this information up if you want. You asked how PGD could stimulate 177% growth, I posted all the facts that show exaclty how this is possible, and explaning how GSO to CMH had 812% stimulation with SX. The question has been answered.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 104): The Florida Sunshine laws makes these documents available on request.

These are federal rules, not just state rules. Any public company, or governmental agency must make all financial matters available to the public. It doesn't take special access it takes about 3 minutes of "Googling".

Quoting BillReid (Reply 104): web and wouldnot need to get from the authorities?

The "Authorities" post this information on the internet, it is a much cheaper distribution method than old-fashioned channels such as printing materials or faxes.

All this information is avaialble online.

[Edited 2007-12-03 06:27:09]

I spent the last twenty minutes cleaning up this thread. Thirty deletions because of two members.

I will not clean it up again.

Next time I see it go off track it'll be locked and every offending member spends two weeks on the street.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 91): posted all the facts that show exaclty how this is possible, and explaning how GSO to cmh had 812% stimulation with SX. The question has been answered.

812% is inflated....if you think all those people are coming from GSO you are sadly mistaking....wait another (if they are still around) year and I bet you see the RDU/CLT-CMH numbers take a dip on AA/US to reflect this.

You bumped a 5 day old thread to say that?

 

Skybus is certianly providing lots of entertaining reading on here.

If this thread had stayed anywhere near on-topic, it would have been about, what, 10 posts long?

The simple answer to the thread's opening question is a straight-forward "no"! If SX can't make BLI (a.k.a. SEA) or SAN work, I don't see a lot of hope for northwest Oregon.

IF SX is around in a couple of years, and IF they go ahead with plans for 60 a/c, and IF SEA and SAN are again served, THEN we'll discuss additional west coast expansion.

bb

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 91): The "Authorities" post this information on the internet, it is a much cheaper distribution method than old-fashioned channels such as printing materials or faxes. All this information is avaialble online.

OK. Lets call a spade a spade.
Please post the November enplaned/deplaned as well as seats landed at RSW, TPA, MCO. MIA, etc etc.
Please provide by carrier.
Or at least let us all know where the info is..

Quite obviously, by your comment you have web access to something that the rest of us do not.
Also while your at it I would like you to post the SX enplaned/deplaned and operations numbers for all airports they serve in FLA. Obviously you have these numbers based on your comment above, so why don't you provide. Or is it you don't want to add valid data to your argument, child.

But prove me wrong and post the info. Of course you could request the info directly from the airports (which is available by law), show us.
I want the November 2007 numbers, or even the October numbers..
Pray tell!

Quoting JetBlueJackets (Reply 93): 812% is inflated....if you think all those people are coming from gso you are sadly mistaking....wait another (if they are still around) year and I bet you see the RDU/CLT-CMH numbers take a dip on AA/US to reflect this.

Why is that inflated. This is no different than talking RDU and CLT numbers on certain routes at the cost of GSO. This type of thing is nothing new. If people are traveling to take the flights from the two other airports, that is certainly valid. The 812% shows the actual increase at GSO. But another you also have to realize is that this also shows the people flying to CMH, staying the night and connecting on Skybus elsewhere. And yes, people are doing this too. And if people are willing to do that, they'll be doing it through GSO also. Again, certainly valid to show those figures as O&D for CMH and GSO.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 96): Of course you could request the info directly from the airports (which is available by law), show us. I want the November 2007 numbers, or even the October numbers.. Pray tell!

You can't do this yourself?

Link to an article/video on Skybus. A few blips of GSO in the video. Kinda interesting...

http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs...cle?AID=/20071207/NRSTAFF/71207006

Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 98): You can't do this yourself?

Yes you can.
Under the Sunshine law all airport records are public records. As public records anyone can request a copy.
For instance if the press wants the emilas and content of every email sent and recieved by the CEO then by law it has to be released. Every document that the airport has is subject to this law. Furthermore an airport can request the same documents from another. The only docs that do not apply are personnel records.