Short answer: My picks are RIC and SAV.
Really long answer:
Regarding Richmond, there were two recent articles in the Richmond Times-Dispatch about the city's efforts to lure a low fare carrier to RIC.
Will it ever be cheaper to fly out of Richmond?
Low-fare carriers lure us away, but local officials have a new plan
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satel...d=1031776890713
The above article talks about a grant the city has applied for to use for advertising if/when a low-fare carrier comes to RIC.
The next article details the plans.
Details of the marketing plan for a low-fare airline
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satel...d=1031776890305
A few years ago, Southwest was really interested in going into Trenton, NJ but the NIMBY's raised such a fuss that Southwest basically said "We don't want to go where we're not wanted" and started looking elsewhere.
Richmond, on the other hand, is BEGGING Southwest to come in and if the city gets the grant they can help advertise that Southwest is there. It seems like a win-win situation.
Also, Southwest has said they want to build up PHL. What better way to do that to that than to add RIC? RIC can't help build up BWI like all Southwest's other new cities in the Northeast did because it's too close. But at 198 miles, PHL-RIC is a perfect candidate for Southwest service and it adds another "spoke" out of PHL.
This data is from the Department of Transportation's Consumer Airfare Report Q3 2003 - the latest figures available. First let's look at some of the short-haul routes Southwest has already announced out of PHL and see what conditions for each city-pair was like last summer.
PHL-PVD - 238 miles 100 daily passengers (approximately 50 in each direction) US Airways was both the market share leader and the "low-fare" leader with a 92.16% market share and an average one-way fare of $326.80. That's EACH WAY. Southwest obviously thinks they can do it cheaper. (and they can)
PHL-MHT - 290 miles 87 daily passengers. US Airways was again the market share leader and the low-fare leader with 90.61% of the market and an average one-way fare of $306.96.
PHL-BDL - 196 miles 117 daily passengers. US was the market share leader with 90.9% of the market and an average one-way fare of $298.82. United Airlines was the low fare leader on this route with 8.63% market share and an average one-way fare of $292.46. So between the two of them US and UA control 99.53% of the market and their average fares are only $6.00 apart. And the average one-way fares in this market are highway robbery.
Now let's look at PHL-RIC. It's 198 miles (about the same as PHL-BDL) and there are 93 daily passengers on the route. US is the market share leader with a 96.38% share and an average one-way fare of $323.00. United is the low-fareleader on the route with 3.26%of the market and an average one-way fare of $291.71.
This route screams for Southwest service.
Throw in a couple of flights to MDW, MHT, PVD and others to either BNA, ISP, Florida or the west and you've got your initial daily flights out of RIC.
If you had 4 daily rountrips RIC-PHL that would put PHL up to 45 daily deparures out of 4 gates so PHL would probably be maxed out at that time until Southwest can get additional gates.
As far as what other cities to fly to out of RIC, here's a map of what cities now have n/s service out of RIC.
http://www.flyrichmond.com/HTML/Flight_Inf...op_Flights.html
Note that the map shows n/s service to both MCO and TPA, but it's Saturday only according to the airport website.
When I read that first article posted above, a couple other things jumped out at me.
"The application even includes letters of support from JetBlue and Southwest Airlines, two carriers targeted by the airport. The airlines wrote that the grant would improve Richmond's chances of landing a low-fare carrier; JetBlue said previously that it might add markets in the middle of next year.
In the application, the airport lays bare how dire its situation is. The loss of passengers to competing airports represents about 34 percent of the core travel base in Richmond and three surrounding counties, up from the 20 percent loss reported in 1999. This includes travelers who normally would fly into Richmond but choose other airports instead."
Southwest needs to get into RIC before jetBlue so they can take advantage of RIC's grant money (if RIC gets it and I believe the decision is coming later this month). Something else I noticed in the article:
"The three Washington-Baltimore airports siphon off 24 percent of the area's travelers, with Newport News and Norfolk each taking a 4 percent share of the market. Raleigh-Durham's airport in North Carolina captures 2 percent."
and later:
"With the addition of new Independence Air this summer, Dulles was expected to draw even more people from the core Richmond market, which includes Hanover, Chesterfield and Henrico counties."
Going into RIC now would enable Southwest to compete somewhat with Independence Air without Southwest actually going into Dulles.
And while Southwest is waiting for additional gates at PHL, why not start start nibbling around in the Southeast where Delta has a strong market share?
That's where SAV comes into play.
I think it would fit into their current system well. Even though it may not have a huge population base, it's enough of a tourist destination that you could generate a lot of traffic from people in other parts of the country (especially the Southeast and Florida) who'd like to visit.
According to the airport website, SAV has nonstop service to 17 cities. Look at the following map (scroll to the bottom of the page) and notice which cities don't have nonstop service.
http://www.savannahairport.com/airlines.php
No nonstop service at all to any city in Florida and other cities in the southeast that WN already serves. Southwest doesn't need to operate at ATL to be able to compete with AirTran and Delta. Southwest needs to figure out which cities in the southeast can support nonstop service to each other without having to go through ATL or CLT to get there. Compete with Delta and US Airways by providing point-to-point service within the south and siphon off their connecting traffic.
Plus a lot of people traveling beteen SAV and these other cities probably drive now. If I'm going to have to pay an average of $150.00 or more each way and suffer through a connection in ATL or CLT just to go 300 - 400 miles, I'm probably just going to drive. But if Southwest comes in and I can get there nonstop and for a fare of $29.00 - $79.00, then I might just consider flying instead. So they wouldn't just be stealing traffic from other carriers, they'd be generating new demand.
Also, Southwest does like to open a new city with a lot of flights, usually 10 - 14 to start. At least 50 - 60% of the initial flights are short-haul and the rest are mid to long-haul. When Southwest opened all those cities in the northeast, (MHT, PVD, BUF, ALB, BDL, ISP, and ORF) they all got at least 7 flights to BWI with the remaining initial flights being to Florida and/or MDW/BNA and/or PHX/LAS.
In the case of SAV, if Southwest were to ever go there, I don't think you'd initially see 7 n/s to any one nearby city. I think you'd see 2, 3 or 4 daily flights to several nearby cities that don't currently have n/s service to SAV and there are many to choose from.
SAV - MCO 255 mi
SAV - RDU 293 mi
SAV - TPA 297 mi
SAV - BHM 338 mi
SAV - PBI 381 mi
SAV - BNA 417 mi
SAV - FLL 422 mi
SAV - ORF 435 mi
SAV - SDF 490 mi
SAV - JAN 520 mi
SAV - BWI 549 mi
SAV - MSY 557 mi
And they don't fly there yet, but SAV - RIC is 431 miles.
Also - from a couple of months ago:
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Airport Renovations, Expansion
WTOC-TV Ch 11, Savannah (GA)
The Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport is celebrating ten years by making some changes. Not only is the airport getting new carpets and a new escalator, it's are also celebrating a 14 percent increase in travelers from last year. In fact, their April numbers are 19 percent higher than last year.
The airport commission says all this is thanks to an increase in flights. "We do have more seats, you know we've been telling them for years, get us the seats we'll fill the planes, and now all of our pleading and planning has really paid off," said commission spokesperson Lori Griffin.
The airport is also doing a major expansion starting at the end of this year. They are adding two more gates to expand their flight options.
Source:
http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg30429.html
Two more gates. Hello? Southwest? Â
CHS would be another good candidate for Southwest for a lot of the same reasons SAV would (touristy destination and no nonstops to Florida and many other cities in the south) CHS has n/s service to IAH, EWR, LGA, CVG, ATL, DFW, DCA, JFK, IAD, DTW, CLT, PHL, RDU, ORD, and Saturday only n/s service to BOS and MSP. However, I think Southwest would probably wait to add CHS until after CHS has finished construction of it's new 1200 space parking garage scheduled for completion in Fall 2005.
If they announced RIC and SAV at the same time, they could get into RIC before jetBlue and also compete somewhat with Independence Air by retaining RIC traffic that might have driven to Dulles, while at the same time connecting RIC and PHL to help build up PHL, and they could also get going in SAV by taking advantage of St. Patrick's Day traffic in Savannah.
I've never been to Savannah, but I thought I remembered reading that St. Patrick's Day in Savannah was the second largest gathering of celebrants in the US for St. Patrick's Day and that it was a real big deal for the city as far as tourism goes. Kind of like how New Orleans benefits from Mardi Gras. Maybe someone from the area could confirm or deny.
Anyway, I think a late October announcement after they've released Q3 results) for RIC and SAV to begin in mid to late February would be great. After that, just start picking off cities in the Southeast like CHS, GSP, CLT, and GSO - other cities where the dominant carriers are Delta and/or US. Plus, with lots of short haul flights from cities in the southeast to Florida, it helps Southwest build up TPA, MCO, FLL and PBI.
Southwest chooses its battles carefully and that seems like a good strategy for right now considering that US and Delta both are (financially speaking) two of the weaker carriers right now.
Just more of my rambling thoughts on one of my favorite subjects. Â
LoneStarMike