But they all didn't make money serving Pittsburgh, a very important distinction.
Allegehny Airport Authority Putting Final Nail In Its Own Coffin
- Thread starter Jimmy Neutron
- Start date
burghlaw1
Member
- May 13, 2003
- 76
- 0
There are 50 gates on concources A & B. They are closing 27. That leaves 23. US has 10 and LUV has 3. There are still 10 gates for any expansion that Southwest might have in mind.
And you know that for a fact?
I got to go home to PIT recently and was in absolute SHOCK at how busy the airport was at 2pm on a Monday afternoon. The line was out to the doors just like it always is on a Monday morning. And when I inquired about the amount of passengers at that time of day, the TSA agent said, "this has been happening often lately".
Now the cynic in me says these people weren't flying US so I walked around since I had time to kill. Infact most of the passengers were filling the gates at the other airlines servicing PIT that day. I was flying WN since US didn't have a schedule that worked to my advantage.
Interesting to say the least.
So if all of the other airlines increased their business in PIT since US started minimizing it's schedule, then it's very likely those airlines made $$$ in PIT.
We all know that PIT will never be what it once was. People need to get over it already. But if the airport authority thinks it can raise the rent and get away with it then more power to them.
Honestly I don't think this increase is going to scare away any airline. Except US.
Yes, I do. You expect me to back up my comments yet you make sweeping assumptions without verifiable proof? God, I love the internet. Jet Blue is not making money in PIT, they stated as much only a couple months ago. There are also rumors that Southwest isn't turning much of a profit in PIT, if any. The issue in PIT isn't load factor, it's the yield.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #20
Just a few things.....
From all appearances, this increase will only last 6 months to a year. Why? Because the PIT budget doesn't include the money from the gambling generated fund. That is expected to allow PIT to drop fees to less than currently charged.
US will still be paying a disproportionate portion of the non-landing fees because they'll still be leasing a disproportionate number of gates.
Even the increased fees, when looked at from a per enplanement cost standpoint, will result in other airlines paying less per passenger than US. With the increased passenger counts other airlines are seeing, they'll see little change year over year. US is losing passengers faster than it's cutting facility cost, so is seeing bigger increases that the change in fees would indicate. For example, US is currently paying roughly $5 more per enplaned passenger than WN in gate/ramp/baggage area/ticket counter space.
Finally, yields are generally higher @ PIT than PHL. What US is complaining about is not being able to collect an average of $269 PIT-PHL (1Q05) instead of only $119 (1Q07) or $232 PIT-ORD (1Q05) instead of $115 (1Q07). Being able to realize a yield of "only" 33 to 50 cents per mile makes for "low yields" when it comes to US.
Jim
From all appearances, this increase will only last 6 months to a year. Why? Because the PIT budget doesn't include the money from the gambling generated fund. That is expected to allow PIT to drop fees to less than currently charged.
US will still be paying a disproportionate portion of the non-landing fees because they'll still be leasing a disproportionate number of gates.
Even the increased fees, when looked at from a per enplanement cost standpoint, will result in other airlines paying less per passenger than US. With the increased passenger counts other airlines are seeing, they'll see little change year over year. US is losing passengers faster than it's cutting facility cost, so is seeing bigger increases that the change in fees would indicate. For example, US is currently paying roughly $5 more per enplaned passenger than WN in gate/ramp/baggage area/ticket counter space.
Finally, yields are generally higher @ PIT than PHL. What US is complaining about is not being able to collect an average of $269 PIT-PHL (1Q05) instead of only $119 (1Q07) or $232 PIT-ORD (1Q05) instead of $115 (1Q07). Being able to realize a yield of "only" 33 to 50 cents per mile makes for "low yields" when it comes to US.
Jim
Yeah I love the internet too. Did I mention B6? No. Infact I have a source myself that B6 is very disappointed with PIT. "This Source" works for B6 and is a neighbor of mine and he told me this after a visit to the city this past summer when he and the B6 executives stopped in PIT to talk with the city, county and airport authority. He even went as far as to hint that B6 just might pull out of PIT altogether.
And if yield is indeed the factor then the airlines will pass along the increase to the customer.
As it's been stated by someone I hold in high esteem, it's the fares!! Reasonable fares attract the consumer. Being held hostage just creates apathy towards any carrier that continues to abuse it's customer base.
And THANKS to BoeingBoy for always being the voice of reason and knowledge !! Seems someone does know what's going on out there.
Be Careful What You Wish For.
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2006
- 2,269
- 571
Can we merge this w/ WN adding 60+ Flights/gates thread?
Last sentence from this article: "More details in tomorrow's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" Does anyone know if the Saturday issue of the PP-G had a follow up article?
whatkindoffreshhell
Veteran
Cece Poister (Director of PIT Marketing) is trying to attract cool cargoes (flowers, perishables etc) which is a great idea -- but the airline would be looking to fill their southbound trips too.
Point is that PIT needs to attract and develop other revenue souces than relying on pax fees.
Yeah, it is sad they are turning to gambling.....
Point is that PIT needs to attract and develop other revenue souces than relying on pax fees.
Yeah, it is sad they are turning to gambling.....
Hello Newman
Senior
- Aug 23, 2002
- 376
- 0
SOUNDS TO ME LIKE PIT IS TURNING INTO AMON CARTER FIELD...
.Be Careful What You Wish For.
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2006
- 2,269
- 571
Amon Carter Field-http://www.airfields-freeman.com/TX/Airfields_TX_FtWorth_NE.htm
Which airlines are (now) seeing sufficient "increased passenger counts" to offset the fee increases and on which routes, or are you just projecting that other airlines will eventually pick up US's give ups?
How on earth did you arrive at the conclusion "..yields are generally higher @ PIT than PHL" ? The only PIT flights which MAY (consistently) produce a higher Yield % than PHL are high volume O&D leisure destination flights (e.g. LAS). You would need to compare equal city pairs to prove otherwise, e.g., PIT-LAX, PIT-ORD, etc. and PHL-LAX, PHL-ORD, etc.. I really doubt in any major market, that PIT consistently provides more business (high yield %) traffic/flight than PHL. Obviously when comparing a single PIT flight with several PHL flights on the same route, one or more of the PHL flights may have a lower yield % than the single PIT flight, but the PHL average/flight will be higher and typically sigificantly so. However, if you can provide specifics to prove otherwise, I am all ears. The real problem with PIT is that even with lower fares forced by WN and B6 (which itself is not happy and may cut and leave), the region cannot provide enough Yield offset to provide US with even the assemblance of profitability.
"......While in Pittsburgh earlier this month, Southwest Chief Executive Officer Gary Kelly said the Dallas-based carrier "will probably" add one to two flights in Pittsburgh next year, although he did not identify the routes.
Ms. Eichinger (Southwest spokeswoman) said she doesn't expect the fee increases to affect those plans. She said, however, that airport fees, if they continue to go up, conceivably could affect the airline's long-term plans for growth..."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07303/829555-85.stm
Ms. Eichinger (Southwest spokeswoman) said she doesn't expect the fee increases to affect those plans. She said, however, that airport fees, if they continue to go up, conceivably could affect the airline's long-term plans for growth..."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07303/829555-85.stm
OP
Jimmy Neutron
Veteran
- Dec 2, 2005
- 566
- 99
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #29
This is the reason I started this posting....these fees may very well cause all airlines to rethink their operations out of PIT
Pittsburgh and Allegheny County must be some of the dumbest people in govt. anywhere...
Pittsburgh and Allegheny County must be some of the dumbest people in govt. anywhere...
burghlaw1
Member
- May 13, 2003
- 76
- 0
Jimmy,
I agree with many of your points, but what do you propose as the solution? The debt has to be paid. Alternatively the aiport authority, I suppose, could default, which would lead to bondholders taking over. I can't vouch for the pros and cons of this course of action. It's the rare case that a government agency files for bankruptcy.
I also disagree with your comments regarding debt reduction to keep the hub here. The fact is that the county and state did offer debt reduction to keep the hub here. They offered about 1/3 of what US was looking for, and began negotiating. David Segal never finished the negotiations. He was too focused on Southwest invading Philadelphia, and the escalating costs of fuel-that ultimately put US back into bankruptcy for the second time. At the end of the day, I think that US abolished the hub in PIT to reduce its high labor costs here knowing that many employees would retire or leave the company rather than transfer to another base. I also don't think US could afford three hubs while in survival mode. And, even if they had arrived at a deal and signed new long-term leases, they could have been abrogated again in the second bankruptcy.
I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.
Burghlaw
