Branson wants to try and sway Dallas for DAL gates

[eolesen]

As to the specifics of when WN publishes their schedules, the only point is that the legacy carriers ALL publish their schedules based on the ability of their res systems, not when the company decides they want to start selling seats. It is the same number of days in advance, regardless of the season or market.

You. Are. Wrong.

Maybe Deltamatic is limited (which I doubt) but how far in advance you publish your schedules and availability is most certainly a business decision.

There is no standard. Some go with rolling availability (e.g. always 330 days), some extend the window a calendar month at a time, and some use a fixed date range.

In North America, NK is one carrier who doesn't use rolling availability.

Jetblue and Virgin America both use Sabre, yet B6 only has 8 months out for sale while VX has 11 months.

I know, you're going to come back with a qualifier about legacy carriers on legacy systems. Don't care. The point still stands that what you see as an industry standard practice actually isn't a standard or a practice. It's a business decision.

 

[WorldTraveler]

E,
you will note (if you choose to) that I used the term legacy carrier. None of the carriers you noted fit that description. UA doesn't run on a legacy system but still use legacy processes.

having 300+ days of availability as far out as possible matters to int'l itineraries and convention and negotiated business such as cruise lines. I doubt seriously the legacy carriers will ever give up having nearly 11 months or more of availability even if WN doesn't want to.

The network airlines all have enhanced their automated reaccom capabilities. Being able to sell for nearly a year (and the legacies also have revenue mgmt. systems that can block seats and forecast demand even further out than that) is worth more than the cost of reaccommodation.

yes, it is a business decision and the automated systems that the legacy carriers use - traditional or not - all support that business decision.

IIRC, WN's schedules are published soon, perhaps tomorrow?

other than when WN publishes its schedule, the system/business process issue is of no interest to this discussion.


thank you for your kind response, swamt.

in short, no I have no information other than what has been published. DL has been rather quiet about this whole DAL thing but they are clearly very resolute because they aren't backing down. There isn't really a bet involved because DL's chances are to get into the ExpressJet gates. I have no doubt that WN will fully use its gates given that it has not gained the other two. I do expect a schedule with more than 160 flights/day.

Yes, I do see not only the revenue advantage that Virgin will gain by being out from under AA's hand but also the cost reductions you note.

And yes I do expect that WN will be a much, much tougher competitor than AA was. I think Virgin made a mistake, esp. since it involves weakening their position in some key markets in order to serve DAL but that is their decision to make and life with. AA certainly won't be disappointed if WN sends them packing.

as for the losers in this whole thing... what got lost the most is the ability of the free market to win. When the government gets involved in trying to sort out free market issues, consumers and companies that live by the principles of the free market system always lose.

 

[eolesen]

The network airlines all have enhanced their automated reaccom capabilities. Being able to sell for nearly a year (and the legacies also have revenue mgmt. systems that can block seats and forecast demand even further out than that) is worth more than the cost of reaccommodation.

Gee, no kidding, Skippy. I've sold enhanced auto-reacc capability to airlines
 

other than when WN publishes its schedule, the system/business process issue is of no interest to this discussion.

Nice try, but I'm not the one who said "legacy carriers ALL publish their schedules based on the ability of their res systems, not when the company decides they want to."

You were wrong, and now it's of no interest. Shocking.
 

as for the losers in this whole thing... what got lost the most is the ability of the free market to win. When the government gets involved in trying to sort out free market issues, consumers and companies that live by the principles of the free market system always lose.

Yep. It's always better when airlines, with their own commercial interests, can dictate to the government how it's really supposed to be done...

As flawed as the DOJ is at the highest levels, the guys in the anti-trust division did their job here.

 

[WorldTraveler]

in terms of requiring AA/US to divest part of DCA, yes.

In terms of perhaps gates at ORD, perhaps.

In every other aspect of the AA/US merger agreement, the DOJ overstepped its boundaries. Note that I have repeatedly said that AA should not have been forced to give up its gates at DAL. There was nothing anticompetitive about AA being able to compete at DAL. It was part of the agreement that WN signed in 2006 and the US merger changed nothing with respect to AA's position in N. Texas relative to WN.

WN went running to the government looking for slots at DCA and LGA and found out that the result is that they are not going to get as large at DAL as they wanted.

bummer for them.

they'll still do just fine... just won't be as big as they would like or they thought they might be.

and DL will sell its seats out of DAL 300+ seats in advance (330 perhaps) just like they have for years and will do at DFW.

 

[eolesen]

Again, you miss the obvious.

This was a settlement, not an order. Rarely do both parties get everything they wanted in a settlement.

Neither you or I have any idea how much or what AA was asked to give up during the opening discussions. It's entirely possible that AA proposed giving up slots and assets at DAL/LAX/ORD/DCA/LGA in order to preserve other assets targeted by the DOJ.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm sorry that you can't have a civil discussion without feeling a need to put someone down.

I miss nothing, E.

I do not believe that AA should have had to give up its right to serve DAL just because of the merger. I'm not sure why the DOJ thought adding US' position to N. Texas changed anything but whatever happened outside of Texas has no bearing on AA's ability to serve the market.

What needed to happen is to ensure that there was ample competition from N. Texas. The Fall of Wright ensures that. The more competitors that are free to compete, the better.

And, given that the target involving N. Texas/DFW was the domination of AA/US to certain markets in both the SE and the SW, banning AA from DAL doesn't accomplish that.

What would have been far more effective is a limit on AA's abilities to move prices.

The reason why AA was pushed out of DAL was because WN whined that it could not effectively compete against AA mean Wright fell - and that argument had nothing to do with the merger.

 

[eolesen]

I'm sorry that you can't have a civil discussion without feeling a need to put someone down.

I miss nothing, E.

You call stating a fact putting you down? Please...

You've implied all along that AA was forced to give up stuff against their will.

That's hogwash. AA traded a few cards that the other side really, really wanted, and probably gave up a few more slots in order to prevent further mitigating actions.

Getting rid of the DAL gates was a no-brainer to me. I suspect Kirby saw it as of very little consequence to his long term plans, and he was wright. Keeping that lease was originally about keeping options open if Wright fell, but renewing it in 2008 was foolish, and all about ego vs. profitability.

Someone asked in another thread what I saw happening with DAL if AA had stayed; my answer was limited service on weekdays only to LGA, LAX, DCA, and ORD. Anything else would be cannibalizing DFW, and that's exactly what's going to happen for DL. They won't be winning new customers. I'd guess 95% of what they might carry on any overlap markets is business they were already carrying out of DFW (or would have carried in the case of LAX, which they stopped serving years ago).

 

[WorldTraveler]

all I have to say is that if you really believe that is all the demand that DAL will be able to generate, you are in for a rude surprise.

You can't honestly believe that position if you realize that WN is the largest carrier and has the highest average fare from the combined DAL/DFW market to nearly all cities that they presently serve from DAL.

 

[WNMECH]

Now I am curious.
Can anyone tell me who has the higher average fares from Love Field between Delta and SWA?
Only on routes that they both serve.

Apples to apples only please.

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL only serves ATL from DAL which WN does not.

There is no apples to apples comparison between the two from DAL.

DL also serves no routes from DFW that are inside the current Wright Perimeter.

The reason why the comparison can be made between WN and AA is because AA does serve airports from DFW which WN serves from DAL.

UA is similar to DL. UA serves IAH while WN serves HOU.

 

[eolesen]

all I have to say is that if you really believe that is all the demand that DAL will be able to generate, you are in for a rude surprise.

You can't honestly believe that position if you realize that WN is the largest carrier and has the highest average fare from the combined DAL/DFW market to nearly all cities that they presently serve from DAL.

We'll see soon enough.

Going back to another comparison you like to point to... MDW... I was just doing a 2004 vs. 2013 comparison.

On a departure basis, that airport is down over 60 departures a day:
 

   2004  2013  
AA   3    0   withdrew
US   3    0   withdrew
CO   8    0   withdrew
DL   8    25   dropped CVG & MEM
NW   15   0    merged w/DL
F9   6    3    added TTN
FL   8    18   merged w/WN
TZ   145  0    ceased operations prior to CD+0 with WN
WN   125   211

Arguably, there's more of an argument for second airport operations when there's a fair distance between them. MDW & ORD are an hour apart driving. HOU and IAH are over 45 minutes, as are IAD and DCA. LGA and JFK are ~30 minutes apart in moderate traffic.

DAL and DFW are just 20 minutes away terminal to terminal in moderate traffic.

The reason I picked 2004 is because that's when their new terminal and FIS opened.

None of the dropoffs were materially impacted by mergers, so I think it's a fairly reasonable comparison on what will eventually happen. Departures at DAL will spike, and then start to fall off *except* for WN.

 

[WorldTraveler]

that's what you want to believe but DAL is in a far more advantageous position relative to the wealth centers in N. Texas than either HOU or MDW are in their respective cities.

I love that this industry has so much publicly available data. It won't take long not only to see how successful DAL will be, which will mean that your and AA execs' willingness to walk away from it was costly, but also how well WN will do there.

 

[700UW]

DL was so successful in Dallas that the shuttered their hub and maintenance hangar.

 

[yoyodyne]

DL was so successful in Dallas that the shuttered their hub and maintenance hangar.

 
They were just as successful as US at PIT...

 

[700UW]

And what does that have to do with DL and DFW?
 
PIT MTC is still open for US.