Three Way Battle In Denver Heats Up

[peaches]

One might say that F9 definitely appears to be trying to align its cust. service with the WN model recently. Their marketing is also a knock-off of WN's...especially with the new TV show. However I think all of this is just a reaction to having WN in their one and only hub now...just trying to remain competitive. The airbus fleet and service levels don't mesh with WN and all that WN would get is routes. Seeing as F9's routes aren't anything that require rights or slots (for the most part) WN would gain nothing other than one less competitor with a merger. It would be alot to spend to get rid of F9. I think WN will just keep expanding DEN (within reason) with upcoming deliveries and stick with their own model. Does it look like F9 is getting dolled up for a dance with WN? Yes. Do I think WN will ask them to dance? No.

Thanks for your response. It was just a thought. I'd hate to see F9 go the way of West Pac. Hmmmm....wonder if CO is eyeing them up?

 

[JS]

Yup, $90 each way tomorrow, $54 each way 2 weeks from now, and $49 each way a month from now. That's really gouging the public.

Let's look at another monopoly route - this time by my employer US - GSO to CLT, about 90 miles apart.

$261 one way is still available tomorrow, two weeks from now, and a month from now.

How about round trip? You can double the WN fares, how about US?

$536.60 tomorrow, $432.60 two weeks from now with an overnite stay or a month from now with a Saturday night stay. Of course, these include taxes and fees.

Jim

That's a silly example. Who would bother with flying to go 90 miles? Is it really a surprise the fare is that high? The few people who buy it are not interested in saving money or time, else they would be on I-85.

 

[Ch. 12]

Thanks for your response. It was just a thought. I'd hate to see F9 go the way of West Pac. Hmmmm....wonder if CO is eyeing them up?

I would also hate to see F9 go away. It is nice to have a somewhat "fresh" airline around (even though F9 has been around...it still feels "fresh" compared to the goliaths). An acquisition by CO would definitely be interesting as that might mean that they would have a DEN hub once again. I tend to think that F9 will remain solo for now b/c they don't bring enough to a large carrier. I could see an alliance/merger with a smaller carrier (or startup...Virgin America??).

I DO think that F9 needs to figure things out and quickly b/c they now face WN in their one hub and will soon possibly face Virgin America. It is only a matter of time until B6 invades as well. F9 needs to diversify its route offerings and have more of a "focus city" approach...at least one other "hub" would be good.

 

[peaches]

I would also hate to see F9 go away. It is nice to have a somewhat "fresh" airline around (even though F9 has been around...it still feels "fresh" compared to the goliaths). An acquisition by CO would definitely be interesting as that might mean that they would have a DEN hub once again. I tend to think that F9 will remain solo for now b/c they don't bring enough to a large carrier. I could see an alliance/merger with a smaller carrier (or startup...Virgin America??).

I DO think that F9 needs to figure things out and quickly b/c they now face WN in their one hub and will soon possibly face Virgin America. It is only a matter of time until B6 invades as well. F9 needs to diversify its route offerings and have more of a "focus city" approach...at least one other "hub" would be good.

If they are hurting financially, it would be tough to expand to another hub. One thing that killed W7 is that they grew too fast. It all depends on if WN wants to run them out or not. UA was known for that, they killed W7, ran out CO, but now they are so focused on their own problems, they aren't about to run anyone out.

 

[BoeingBoy]

That's a silly example. Who would bother with flying to go 90 miles? Is it really a surprise the fare is that high? The few people who buy it are not interested in saving money or time, else they would be on I-85.

You're right - flying a plane 90 miles costs less than flying a plane over 200 miles, but the CASM is higher.

How about CLT-SAV? Not a monopoly route, but about the same distance as STL-MCI and no other non-stop competition.....

On US (one way, including taxes/fees, coach ticket per Kayak.com):
Tomorrow - $630
One week from tomorrow - $450
Two weeks from tomorrow - $128

Jim

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

A few thooughts that occurred to me as I get ready to go have lunch at the chow hall.

1. Southwest is not in Denver to kill Frontier, or anyone else. They are there to make some money.

2. Geographically Denver was in just the right place.

3. All things being equal, Southwest would rather carry psgrs DEN to SLC, PHX, MCI, DAL, MDW than run a bunch of transcons. The 600 mile flight is just perfect - a good yield (much better than a transcon) while enjoying a much improved CASM when compared to CRP-HOU or AUS-HOU.

4. Southwest can do well in Denver even if they never carried a single Denver passenger - they are that strong at the other end of whatever route it is they undertake. But there will be some Denver people that fly with SOuthwest and a subset of those will decide they prefer Southwest. Nobody wants to believe that, but it is true. Some folks will decide that Southwest's approach to air travel....decent walk up fares, no change fees, pleasant if not lavish cabin service....is right up their alley. The Phoenix and SLC commuters from Denver may figure out that 8 RTs and get a free ticket is a decent deal. Whatever. The bottom line is that Southwest attracts a clientele - they do not subsist as bottom feeders, carrying only passengers after the cheapest fare or folks who were unable to find space on another carrier.

5. If Southwest harms either Frontier or United, it will be due to the drmatic lowering of walk up fares. That's where the hurt comes in. All the airlines had low fare tickets to practically everyplace. The problem is you couldn't get anything cheap 45 mins before departure. Hence the $119 walk up fare to SLC.