Page 1 of 5

New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:51 pm
by American 767
Please continue here.

New Frontier Part 48 (by American 767 Oct 1 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Happy holidays  

Ben Soriano

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 2:03 pm
by enilria
I'd be shocked if they ever do COS again.

I thought that in the Summer they had 3 RTs at LGA and 2 in the Winter. If that is still true they could keep MIA-LGA at 2 RTs.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:30 pm
by rtalk25
I thought it would be an interesting addition if F9 added PHL-LAX instead of the boring ORD/CLT additions that were announced some months ago but not bookable. But, instead of LAX, wonder if PHL-SNA is possible from F9, with the runway issue at SNA? UA has EWR-SNA.

US/AA is charging high fares for PHL-LAX this summer now that there is no competitor as VX pulled out. If F9 offered service to SNA, I wonder if US/AA would see F9 on PHL-SNA as a direct challenge (and start to lower fares to LAX) or if F9 could exist being the only low fare option between LA region to PHL while US/AA charges high.

I also wonder if CLE-SNA could be possible since F9 seems to be stagnantly doing little at CLE, while NK sets up there.

Possibly a true West Coast flight would generate some reinterest back into F9. Is there still a slot program at SNA that SNA wants new airports/service? Also, would SNA in general still be valuable to F9 or would it likely downsize SNA in favor of just using LAX?

[Edited 2014-11-26 08:32:10]

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:53 pm
by Frontier14
Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 2):
I thought it would be an interesting addition if F9 added PHL-LAX

It would be a lot of plane time for an unproven and already layered route (other carriers) from my perspective.

But you do raise an interesting question of what will happen with LAX? The new S15 schedule has the DEN - LAX schedule going from 5 > 2 trips. Find it hard to understand why F9 was not getting enough p2p traffic on this route to at least be able to maintain three r/ts a day.

It would seem, if the recent F9 strategy (large city pairs) is now the norm, then LAX would be on Indigo's radar for some additional expansion ie..O'Hare, SLC, STL or perhaps CVG. I do not think the west coast corridor would provide any advantages. Then too, there are not many city pairs left from LAX that do not have multiple carriers on them.

Frontier 14

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:47 pm
by SLCSFOPDX
Quoting enilria (Reply 1):

Agree. COS does not fit into F9's new business strategy.

Quoting Frontier14 (Reply 3):

I'm not sure if F9 will expand that much out of LAX. It's an expensive airport with a lot of competition. Maybe a flight to ORD and SLC or MCI, but that's about it.

[Edited 2014-11-26 09:47:55]

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:57 pm
by mariner
Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 2):
I thought it would be an interesting addition if F9 added PHL-LAX instead of the boring ORD/CLT additions that were announced some months ago but not bookable. But, instead of LAX, wonder if PHL-SNA is possible from F9, with the runway issue at SNA? UA has EWR-SNA.

Frontier has flown PHL-LAX non-stop before - 2006 or 7 maybe - but, long way/lot of fuel, it became a victim of the then ascending oil price.

Dunno if they'd bring it back - summer maybe.

mariner

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:10 pm
by masseybrown
Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 2):
I also wonder if CLE-SNA could be possible since F9 seems to be stagnantly doing little at CLE, while NK sets up there.

I think you'd see CLE-SAN first. It's a market with no service that is twice as big as SNA and large enough to support a point2point flight.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:13 pm
by rtalk25
Quoting mariner (Reply 5):
but, long way/lot of fuel
NK has PHL-LAS. LAX is 10% greater in distance, thus it's ~2200 miles to ~2400 miles. Since it's just a small increment more, maybe ULCCs will get into transcons and this one seems to be lacking low fares. ULCCs now are shedding of weight with slimline seats, no IFE, and encouraging pax to travel light with the checked and carry on bags with fees.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 6):
I think you'd see CLE-SAN first. It's a market with no service that is twice as big as SNA and large enough to support a point2point flight.

Good route. I didn't realize that was a better opportunity out there.

I also noticed MIA lacks an SNA flight. It would be interesting if F9 flew to the far out hubs that AA lacks service to in some places (and probably harder for AA to respond), almost similar to when it flew MDT-DEN while UA didn't have that nonstop, but in these cases it'd be larger markets on O&D.

[Edited 2014-11-26 11:17:21]

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:34 pm
by mariner
Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 7):
NK has PHL-LAS. LAX is 10% greater in distance, thus it's ~2200 miles to ~2400 miles. Since it's just a small increment more, maybe ULCCs will get into transcons and this one seems to be lacking low fares. ULCCs now are shedding of weight with slimline seats, no IFE, and encouraging pax to travel light with the checked and carry on bags with fees.

PHL-LAX is still a long way and a lot of fuel although - happily - the price of fuel has dropped strongly the last few months.

As I said, I can see it as a summer route, but there are a bunch of routes I'd rather see first.

Now that Alaska is starting PDX-STL, I wonder if Frontier will bring back STL-PDX as a summer route? And given the remarkable strength of CLE-SEA (98% load factor) is there any chance we'll see CLE-PDX - summer only?

SFO has been getting a bit of attention, so can we expect more routes there?

But the big question about the route map remain what it has been for some time - the great blank spot of New England.

mariner

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:48 pm
by SLCSFOPDX
For F9 out west, expect SFO, SLC, PHX, SAN, DEN, and LAS to be their main areas of focus.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:02 pm
by mariner
It seems that ILG may not be quite dead after all:

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/...-limited-delaware-return/19544625/

"Frontier Airlines plans limited Delaware return

Frontier Airlines plans to offer Delaware customers at least one non-stop Florida route from New Castle Airport in late 2015, a spokesman said on Wednesday.

The Denver-based airline said Monday it would seasonally suspend all flights out of Delaware in April.

"Frontier does plan to return to Wilmington on a seasonal basis sometime in late 2015 with non-stop service to at least one destination in Florida," Frontier spokesman Todd Lehmacher said in a written statement."


Maybe Frontier is saying it to sugar the pill of closure, but it makes sense to me.

mariner

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 7:40 am
by FlyPeoria
Looks like F9's seasonal cuts at Bloomington-Normal, IL (BMI) are going to be permanent.

http://www.pantagraph.com/business/l...e-c93d-5831-8490-0b55485f2d33.html

Quote:
...the airport’s three weekly flights to Denver will effectively cease when a previously announced seasonal stoppage of service begins Jan. 7. Twice weekly service to Orlando, now halted for the season, will resume Dec. 5 and end after April 27.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 5:40 pm
by enilria
Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 2):
I thought it would be an interesting addition if F9 added PHL-LAX
Quoting mariner (Reply 5):
Frontier has flown PHL-LAX non-stop before - 2006 or 7 maybe - but, long way/lot of fuel, it became a victim of the then ascending oil price.
Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 7):
NK has PHL-LAS.

IMHO the trick with the ULCCs is to use the fee structure to hide the real cost and that works best in medium haul. In short haul people can bring less baggage because the trip is probably shorter or they drive if they need luggage and price sensitive. Either way, it is bad for ULCCs in short-haul. In long-haul the fees are not scaled with distance. The bag fee is the same at 200 miles as it is at 2000 miles. That means the fares go up dramatically by distance. For example, if their ancillary revenue is typically $55, that means they only need an aircraft average fare of ~$19 at 300 miles, ~$55 at 500 miles, and probably $175 at 2000 miles. The $175 fare is not very compelling, and their competitors can offer ~$230 which doesn't seem like a huge spread compared to $55 vs $110 at 500 miles.

There are long-haul markets it can work and Vegas is probably the best one to do it because you can get better yield for peak days and times even among leisure travelers, but in general I don't think it works to places like LAX.

Quoting mariner (Reply 10):
Frontier Airlines plans to offer Delaware customers at least one non-stop Florida route from New Castle Airport in late 2015, a spokesman said on Wednesday.

1 seasonal route? Wow, what a meltdown.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:19 pm
by jeepyjeep
Quoting enilria (Reply 12):
Quoting mariner (Reply 10):
Frontier Airlines plans to offer Delaware customers at least one non-stop Florida route from New Castle Airport in late 2015, a spokesman said on Wednesday.

1 seasonal route? Wow, what a meltdown.


I'm surprised that its worth keeping one seasonal route from ILG, but not MDT. (MDT-MCO, that is) I know the loads for MDT-MCO were a bit low for the summer, but I feel like it was the result of poor planning -- a somewhat crappy schedule paired with the A320 instead of the A319.

I'm sure everyone is tired of me talking about MDT. But I'm still slightly upset about this!  

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 3:06 am
by Buddys747
Quoting jeepyjeep (Reply 13):
I'm surprised that its worth keeping one seasonal route from ILG, but not MDT. (MDT-MCO, that is) I know the loads for MDT-MCO were a bit low for the summer, but I feel like it was the result of poor planning -- a somewhat crappy schedule paired with the A320 instead of the A319

It could be because G4 being here, not worth fighting another carrier for Orlando. I noticed they were matching in frequency quite a bit over the years, however fare wise F9 was much higher most of the time. This past summer fares were well over $200 each way several weeks out . G4's were never that high. Even though the loads were lower at the fares they were charging it was profitable.

Quoting jeepyjeep (Reply 13):
I'm sure everyone is tired of me talking about MDT. But I'm still slightly upset about this!

Not at all! Nothing wrong with cheerleading for an airport. I don't think there has been any unrealistic comments or remarks about the whole F9 MDT dabacle. It's upsetting, especially losing DEN as there really isn't any other options for a direct flight. But it's a business and it's there choice to leave. I'm pretty sure they didn't use the grant money for the DEN flights but I'm not 100% certain. Of all the routes that have come and gone at MDT, this is the one route that has had so many comments/posts on local news, facebook, Etc, with people saying how great it was to fly Frontier and how it's going to be such a loss for the area. Most of the time this day and age comments are usually always negative in one way or another.

I'm still curious what they will do with all the Neo's when they arrive.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:26 pm
by enilria
Quoting jeepyjeep (Reply 13):
I'm surprised that its worth keeping one seasonal route from ILG, but not MDT. (MDT-MCO, that is) I know the loads for MDT-MCO were a bit low for the summer, but I feel like it was the result of poor planning -- a somewhat crappy schedule paired with the A320 instead of the A319.
Quoting Buddys747 (Reply 14):
Nothing wrong with cheerleading for an airport.

Let's just keep in mind that F9 routinely lies about whether routes are "seasonal" or just dropped. All the time they say markets are becoming seasonal and never return. I wonder if ILG comes back as all.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:02 pm
by rtalk25
Quoting enilria (Reply 12):
IMHO the trick with the ULCCs is to use the fee structure to hide the real cost and that works best in medium haul.

F9 can probably do really well then in Chicago/ORD then if it grows it. I assume it left MDW for operational reasons to consolidate at ORD, but maybe it should have kept some routes at MDW if they eventually max out their gate utilization at ORD.

Anyways, Chicago, itself a large market with inclement weather in the Winter possibly with ability to stimulate travel, young population often coming from other cities and ok with no frills experience, UA/AA/WN with the hubs likely can't respond to ULCC fares, regional jet service by legacies, lot of medium to longer medium hauls routes to choose from for F9 , and Chicago becomes a destination in the summer as well.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:56 pm
by mariner
Quoting enilria (Reply 12):
1 seasonal route? Wow, what a meltdown.

New owner - new model. Once again, Indigo didn't buy Frontier for what it was.

I guess we now have a fairly clear idea of what Indigo's Frontier won't be - but only generalised clues as to what it will be, with "big cities/more frequency" leading the way.

The outlier is TTN, which seems to have come out of this rather well. Even there, though, the new rules apply - rather than more cities/low frequency, it seems to be fewer cities/more frequency, with three more TTN destinations going to daily.

And the paradox is TTN-UST which, I'm told, is pretty much gangbusters and which is still scheduled at 3 x weekly throughout the booking period.

Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 16):
F9 can probably do really well then in Chicago/ORD then if it grows it. I assume it left MDW for operational reasons to consolidate at ORD, but maybe it should have kept some routes at MDW if they eventually max out their gate utilization at ORD.

A while ago, I heard that ORD may be at 6 aircraft next summer. I raised an eyebrow at the idea, but already it will be up to 4 aircraft by Christmas. The (ORD) Apple schedule is still mostly intact, although AeroMexico will be taking over a couple of the low frequency routes - ZIH and HUX.

Who knows what the full summer schedule will bring?

mariner

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:57 pm
by jeepyjeep
Just noticed that ANC has been removed from the route map on FlyFrontier.com, even though they had said they planned to be back in ANC for 2015. I was hoping that maybe the DEN-ANC flight would return, but just hadn't been loaded into the schedule yet.

I guess DEN-ANC relied too heavily on connecting traffic? I get the whole short to medium haul route thing, but the Alaska routes were generally flown overnight and I heard that ANC had done really well. (FAI, not so much)

Also looks like baggage fees increased on 11/23; most categories look to have increased by about $5.

[Edited 2014-11-28 11:58:01]

[Edited 2014-11-28 11:58:18]

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:41 pm
by Frontier14
Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 16):
F9 can probably do really well then in Chicago/ORD then if it grows it.

Perhaps a limiting factor to substantial growth at ORD will be the lack of gate space. With the upcoming expansion over the next two months, F9 will have access to just two gates ( L1 and L2). Neither of which, I am to understand, is an ideal location for operational purposes. There has already been one reported F9 aircraft being pushed up against a fence this fall that resulted in damage to the plane and a flight cancellation.

Two gates could give F9 around 20 flights/day if used to the max. However, it is my understanding that additional gate space at O'Hare is hard to come by. NK is also looking for more, so it may be a while before anyone can leverage additional real estate to expand beyond what they currently have.

As Mariner has implied, it seems like a no-brainer for F9 to not try ORD - UST, at least for the spring break time to test the waters.

Frontier 14

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 10:36 pm
by GentFromAlaska
Quoting jeepyjeep (Reply 18):
Just noticed that ANC has been removed from the route map on FlyFrontier.com

Yeah, ANC, FAI and Nassau have been removed. the land artwork remains.

TTN-BNA is still shown as a green line (it was once red or seasonal) but will removed after January 5th I suspect when the service stops flies for the last time. I suppose the other TTN routes which were axed will meet the same fate.

In those city pairs with single city service which lasted less than a year you have to wonder how much in penalty payments Indigo is paying for the early termination of leases. BNA keeps the DEN service even though it will be once daily. I believe IND also keeps DEN service.

I would guess airport leases depending on the airport would cost in the $2 - $4 range per square foot per year. I'm assuming a long term lease in the three to five year range would have an escape clause built in which protects the airline and also builds in a economic factor which would allow the airport to adjust the lease rate if necessary perhaps using the Consumer Price Index methodology.

You almost have to wonder if the one or two flights from ILG is being kept for this very reason.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 10:43 pm
by enilria
Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 16):
I assume it left MDW for operational reasons to consolidate at ORD

I think they would rather compete with the legacies than WN.

Quoting jeepyjeep (Reply 18):
I guess DEN-ANC relied too heavily on connecting traffic?

Yup

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 20):
Nassau have been removed

Did it ever start at all?

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2014 11:02 pm
by rj777
How's the new livery painting going? How are they planning on proceeding with it?

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 2:46 am
by rtalk25
Quoting enilria (Reply 21):

I think they would rather compete with the legacies than WN.

I agree to some extent as WN won't discount fares at MDW because of ULCC faring over at ORD. However, maybe F9 could have done MDW-DFW, IAH, MIA,JFK,TTN, UST thus not directly competing against Southwest airport pairs, while freeing up ORD usage for WN servicing airports of MCO, DEN, LAS, SLC, ATL, CLE, IAD plus LAX, SAN, SFO, PIT, RDU, CLT and BNA, PHX for example, thus offering a vast number of destinations for the Chicago region between both MDW and ORD and not likely triggering WN or any of the legacy carriers ability to respond to such a huge ULCC F9 in Chicago. But, maybe F9 would rather have a select six to ten destinations for every city and that's it in it's new ULCC model.

[Edited 2014-11-29 18:53:21]

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 3:09 am
by SLCSFOPDX
Just heard from a reliable source that F9 is seriously looking into expanding even more at SFO, DFW, and SLC.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 5:56 am
by illinoisman
Quoting mariner (Reply 10):
It seems that ILG may not be quite dead after all

They're here; they're gone; they're back; they're leaving. Make up your mind already...12,300 passengers flew out of ILG in August with loads at 92% (only DTW is better) but I guess management feels they can make more money elsewhere. Let them go and contact G4 to come in and pick up these routes.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 6:20 am
by PlanesNTrains
Quoting IllinoisMan (Reply 25):
but I guess management feels

I would assume it's that management "thinks"...in other words, has the information at their disposal to make the most informed decision for their network.

Quoting IllinoisMan (Reply 25):
they can make more money elsewhere.

There's worse things they could shoot for.

Quoting IllinoisMan (Reply 25):
Let them go and contact G4 to come in and pick up these routes.

The more the merrier.

-Dave

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 6:32 am
by mariner
Quoting rj777 (Reply 22):
How's the new livery painting going? How are they planning on proceeding with it?

I don't think there will be another aircraft in the new livery until maybe March, when the next A320 arrives.

For now, the concentration is on the interiors - the conversion to the new seats - which starts in January. It's a big and expensive job.

mariner

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 9:02 pm
by GentFromAlaska
Quoting enilria (Reply 21):
Did it ever start at all?

No the Nassau service did not inaugurate; The dot on the route map stayed for a while after it was axed. The artwork remains. Perhaps Nassau may come back from a new city.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2014 11:40 pm
by enilria
Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 23):
I agree to some extent as WN won't discount fares at MDW because of ULCC faring over at ORD.
Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 23):
thus not directly competing against Southwest airport pairs

It does appear that the ULCCs prefer to compete with WN through routes with 1 degree of separation or a connect. Plus, I think WN treats F9 differently than NK because of the War of Denver.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 26):
I would assume it's that management "thinks"...in other words, has the information at their disposal to make the most informed decision for their network.

Maybe, maybe not. Decisions like becoming a ULCC are ultimately a leap of faith and you could call that "feel". How many routes has the company even said were profitable that they have now cut since they did not fit the new model? That's more feel than think. They have only the profitability of NK to point to. They only hope/feel that F9 will achieve NK's profit levels.

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 28):
Perhaps Nassau may come back from a new city.

Nassau has a tradition of paying airlines to fly there. Those two routes almost certainly had a deal attached. If the service never started you can assume that bridge is somewhere between smoldering and burning.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2014 12:27 am
by mariner
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 26):
I would assume it's that management "thinks"...in other words, has the information at their disposal to make the most informed decision for their network.

Or even - "wants"?

Very clearly, Indigo is framing the airline to what it "wants" Frontier to be.

Despite what has been said here, for example, this new Frontier is overlaying Southwest routes at several major airports. If they try to avoid Southwest, then most of the places left to fly would be the smaller regional airports, which, clearly, Indigo doesn't "want" to do.

Anyone here can second guess 'em all they want - and you know they will - but it's Indigo's money.

mariner

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:33 pm
by ADent
What was up with the Mexican radio outage that grounded Frontier flights to/from Cabo San Lucas and Puerto Vallarta for a couple of days?


http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...in-mexico-flights-resume-wednesday

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayi...-disrupts-mexico-flights/19827421/

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:42 pm
by GentFromAlaska
Quoting ADent (Reply 31):
What was up with the Mexican radio outage that grounded Frontier flights to/from Cabo San Lucas and Puerto Vallarta for a couple of days?

That must be one long transmission line from Detroit to Mexico.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2014 1:23 am
by mariner
There's to be another airline at UST - briefly.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonvi...-to-get-new-direct-flights-to.html

"St. Augustine airport to get new direct flights to Charlotte

The Northeast Florida Regional Airport in St. Augustine is getting new, seasonal nonstop service from ViaAir — the second carrier to offer passenger service to the airport this year.

The service, between Charlotte Douglas International Airport and St. Augustine, will begin on Dec. 19. The 30-seat Embraer EMB-120 aircraft will fly on select dates through Jan. 20."


I'm puzzled they're only taking it to January, ending just before things start to get busy, but maybe they'll change their mind. Anyhoo, I wish them well.

Why post it here, since it doesn't have much to do with Frontier? Only that I very much hope that Frontier does find a way to do something more with UST.

mariner

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2014 2:19 am
by crj900lr
Quoting jeepyjeep (Reply 13):
I'm surprised that its worth keeping one seasonal route from ILG, but not MDT. (MDT-MCO, that is) I know the loads for MDT-MCO were a bit low for the summer, but I feel like it was the result of poor planning -- a somewhat crappy schedule paired with the A320 instead of the A319.

Look for JetBlue to possibly come to MDT and pick up the MDT-MCO route along with a few other routes. I have heard talk about it but have not seen anything official yet.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2014 4:44 pm
by masseybrown
Is Frontier done in PIT? There's still an unlabeled dot on the route map but no destinations.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:08 am
by BravoEchoNov
Look for news tomorrow.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:56 pm
by mariner
Quoting BravoEchoNov (Reply 36):
Look for news tomorrow.

There's one interesting addition - ORD-RSW - 3 x weekly form mid-Feburary - seasonal, just for Spring Break:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/12/prweb12385159.htm

"Frontier Airlines Announces New Service Between Chicago and Fort Myers, Fla. for Spring Break"

mariner

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:47 pm
by enilria
Quoting mariner (Reply 37):
There's one interesting addition - ORD-RSW - 3 x weekly form mid-Feburary - seasonal, just for Spring Break:

Interesting it is 3/week with the move toward daily. I wonder what the rest of the plane does? or if it is replacing something?

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:48 pm
by Frontier14
Quoting enilria (Reply 38):
I wonder what the rest of the plane does? or if it is replacing something?

Could be that F9 is squeezing in more flight block hours in their pursuit to have each airframe flying @ 13 hours per day, just a guess. Flight hours have been increasing each month going forward.

Frontier 14

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:17 pm
by rtalk25
Quoting crj900lr (Reply 34):
Look for JetBlue to possibly come to MDT and pick up the MDT-MCO route along with a few other routes.

It'd be kind of random for JetBlue to add it. There was a gap between when AirTran left (by Southwest will) and when Frontier/Allegiant started at MDT, where JetBlue could have gone in instead, but it didn't want any of those AirTran routes. One would think JetBlue with Northeast operations would look into MDT at that time, but a Denver based airline was more interested. But, I think JetBlue had already evolved to a different niche staying away from mid markets and alternate airports unless they were destination markets for BOS/NYC.

Besides Allegiant in the market, and BWI not too far, I also noticed US having low fares on MDT-CLT-MCO. With US likely having the edge for the FFs in the region, I assume some would stick with US even if there is a connection in CLT. The free carry-on bag, and many get a free checked bag as well.

Atleast a connection in CLT is better than one in ATL. UA also has flight connections via IAD, although the IAD-Florida network from UA isn't as good.

[Edited 2014-12-10 13:19:09]

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:22 pm
by enilria
Quoting Frontier14 (Reply 39):
Could be that F9 is squeezing in more flight block hours in their pursuit to have each airframe flying @ 13 hours per day, just a guess. Flight hours have been increasing each month going forward.

I doubt it. With the checkerboard schedule they really have to add several routes at once or swap one thing for another. You can be certain this was not ever supposed to be open time. I'd bet it replaces something else. Could be Apple flying.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:55 pm
by mariner
Quoting enilria (Reply 41):
Could be Apple flying.

It could be, although most of those changes have been known for some time.

Maybe it just a use of the aircraft from one of the DEN cuts or maybe they've been able to refine the seat installation schedule to open up a bit of time. It's the A319, so maybe they've using one of the two spare A319's that were allotted to that time period, while still giving them some spare aircraft time at ORD.

There are a number of variables with the fleet at the moment, and, as Frontier14 suggested, work on aircraft utilisation is ongoing.

mariner

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 2:17 pm
by 727tiger
Not any surprise at all to those of us watching BKG, but Frontier has now confirmed it will not be returning in May 2015 for seasonal service to DEN. From this morning's Springfield News-Leader:

http://www.news-leader.com/story/new...-service-branson-airport/20209029/

Frontier ends service to Branson Airport

Frontier Airlines told the News-Leader on Wednesday that it has ended its service from Branson Airport to Denver.

"The Frontier business model is changing in many ways and the difficult decision to discontinue our service to Branson from Denver comes after careful analysis and evaluation," Frontier Director of Corporate Communications Todd Lehmacher said in a email. "Historically Frontier has relied on connecting passengers flowing through Denver. We are now focused on delivering ultra-low fares to local traffic via point-to-point service and at this time Branson doesn't fit within this shift in strategy."

Frontier flights out of Branson ended Oct. 25. The company's service was seasonal, so it wasn't immediately clear that it was exiting the market entirely, but Lehmacher confirmed flights will not resume in 2015. The airline first began serving Branson in 2010 and at one point had direct flights to Denver, Austin, Phoenix and Milwaukee.

"We sincerely appreciate the support the community and airport have provided Frontier," Lehmacher continued. "No customers were impacted by the change since there were no bookings beyond Oct. 25."

The decision by Frontier to exit the Branson market has not previously been reported outside of trade publications.

Frontier's exit means that the only service at Branson Airport is Branson AirExpress — operated by Elite Airways — which includes flights to Chicago Midway International Airport and William P. Hobby Airport in Houston.

Frontier is the second airline to exit the market this year. Southwest Airlines' last flight to Branson was in June.

Frontier is exiting about 20 markets from Denver in late 2014 and early 2015, according to data and analysis firm Centre for Aviation.

Because Branson Airport used tax-exempt municipal bonds to finance its construction, reports documenting the airport's finances are required to be publicly posted. Those documents do not mention that Frontier has pulled out of the airport. A financial operating filing posted Nov. 20 — almost a full month after Frontier's last flight — states that "Frontier will continue its daily service from Denver until the end of October when it will seasonally discontinue."

Branson Airport Executive Director Jeff Bourk told the News-Leader on Wednesday afternoon that he only learned Frontier was exiting the market "a week or two ago" — after the filing was posted. When Frontier left on Oct. 25, he said, he was under the impression the airline would resume service in May, as it had in the past. Frontier declined to comment on when it informed Branson Airport.

Branson Airport planned to release that Frontier was exiting the market in connection with an upcoming announcement of new service, Bourk said. He didn't specify what that service will be.

Bourk maintained that Frontier's decision does not reflect poorly on Branson Airport.

"Frontier and Southwest didn't leave Branson because of a problem with the market," Bourk said. "They both left the market because of their changing business models."

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:15 pm
by enilria
Quoting 727tiger (Reply 43):
Not any surprise at all to those of us watching BKG, but Frontier has now confirmed it will not be returning in May 2015 for seasonal service to DEN. From this morning's Springfield News-Leader:

Yes, kind of knew it already, but such bad news for BKG. BKG was in great shape in the AirTran era and now with mergers allowed to get out of control and F9 evolving they have nothing. Very sad. I'm sure Buzz will do some stuff, but that's small solace for them. It's a shame to have achieved what they did and see it all erased even though it was apparently successful when FL was there and F9 was a hub and spoke carrier.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 5:30 am
by SurfandSnow
Quoting mariner (Reply 37):
There's one interesting addition - ORD-RSW - 3 x weekly form mid-Feburary - seasonal, just for Spring Break:

FL did brisk business at RSW, albeit in a highly seasonal manner. Although WN has kept virtually all of the FL service intact and then some (much to my surprise, since WN seemed to be a pretty weak player in the market before the acquisition), their fares tend to be a lot higher than FL's were. Therefore it isn't surprising to see F9 adding service - with fares more comparable to those of FL - on popular routes that FL flew to RSW from the likes of Chicago, Milwaukee, and Northeast Ohio. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see F9 try something like IND-RSW or even ATL-RSW next.

Quoting 727tiger (Reply 43):
Not any surprise at all to those of us watching BKG, but Frontier has now confirmed it will not be returning in May 2015 for seasonal service to DEN.

BKG seemed to be one of the weakest stations in the F9 network even before the airline's strategy changed. I don't think anyone will be all that surprised to learn that the service is now gone for good.

Quoting 727tiger (Reply 43):

"Frontier and Southwest didn't leave Branson because of a problem with the market," Bourk said. "They both left the market because of their changing business models."

F9 and WN left BKG because the market has a huge problem - almost all visitors arrive overland from nearby cities and areas. If anything, the changing business models of both carriers should have helped the airlines succeed, never mind the uniquely generous incentives available by virtue of the airport's private ownership.

WN would have never added BKG under its classic model (where new stations needed to support at least 7-8 daily flights), but they were willing to add service to smaller markets with far fewer daily flights after the FL acquisition. WN had huge FFer bases and great connectivity in 3 of Branson's key feeder markets: Chicago, Dallas, and Houston. They offered seamless connections to all the other important sources of Branson tourists throughout the country (i.e. Austin, Nashville). A lack of higher yielding business travelers on the BKG routes certainly may have been an issue, but other small markets catering pretty much exclusively to VFR and leisure travelers (i.e. CRP, ECP) still have WN service. If BKG didn't work for WN, I don't think any major carrier will be able to pull it off.

F9's DEN-BKG was probably a goner sooner or later under any scenario (Branson is simply not a big draw from Denver, let alone markets further west), but F9's increasing focus on p2p routes and seasonal operations could have made stuff like DFW-BKG or ORD-BKG possible.

Quoting enilria (Reply 44):
BKG was in great shape in the AirTran era and now with mergers allowed to get out of control and F9 evolving they have nothing. Very sad. I'm sure Buzz will do some stuff, but that's small solace for them. It's a shame to have achieved what they did and see it all erased even though it was apparently successful when FL was there and F9 was a hub and spoke carrier.

ATL-BKG was one of many FL routes that relied on extremely generous subsidies for survival. The airline would not have hesitated to cut all BKG service if the local subsidies ran out or otherwise failed to cover their losses, as was the case with markets like FPO, GPT, and UTM.

I'd say BKG was in the best shape during the canyon blue era. WN had all kinds of things going for it as mentioned above, and perhaps more importantly was (and still is) by far the least likely carrier to completely abandon a market after starting service. The fact that they pulled out of BKG so quickly is very telling...

I think the best hope for BKG at this point is AA or NK. AA seems to have a knack for pulling off small niche markets (JLN, MHK, ROW, SAF, etc.), I could see RJ services to DFW and ORD working. NK has a knack for serving low end mass market destinations (Atlantic City, Myrtle Beach, and Branson, anyone?) and a decent presence in key markets like ATL, DFW, IAH, and ORD.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:59 pm
by SunsetLimited
Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 45):
F9 and WN left BKG because the market has a huge problem - almost all visitors arrive overland from nearby cities and areas.

That's the big problem. It's a drive in market when all is said and done, and a very regional one at that. Here in New Orleans, there are ads (geared to senior citizens I'm sure) promoting motorcoach trips to Branson on a year-round basis. I'm sure the same is true in places like Dallas, Nashville, etc. It's always been this way, and I just don't see it changing. BKG is not a mainline market. I see where Elite Airways will be flying CRJ's under the Branson Air Express banner to some cities. That's probably a better bet capacity wise, although I don't see how much $$ will be made. Overall...good move by F9.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:21 pm
by enilria
Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 45):
BKG seemed to be one of the weakest stations in the F9 network even before the airline's strategy changed. I don't think anyone will be all that surprised to learn that the service is now gone for good.

I know from the data it was profitable for F9 and had been off subsidy. When the hub started coming apart the traffic started to fall and F9 knew it would require too much subsidy to cover all the lost connects so it exited.

Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 45):
ATL-BKG was one of many FL routes that relied on extremely generous subsidies for survival.

That's only half true. ATL-BKG was off of subsidy as well and had been for a while when the merger happened. That HOU/MDW/etx stuff FL did was basically revenue guaranteed like "GPT" was doing, but that should be no surprise.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:47 pm
by masseybrown
Quoting SunsetLimited (Reply 46):
It's a drive in market when all is said and done, and a very regional one at that.

All casino "resorts" except for Las Vegas and Macau seem to have become mostly regional draws. Cities need something else to bring in visitors, who then may also gamble once they're there.

RE: New Frontier Part 49

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:28 am
by ryanrap1
Any chance of them returning to San Antonio?