UA transfers its two DAL (Love Field) gates to Southwest; Is DL out?

[WorldTraveler]

then reread the law.

It never gave WN protection to operate from any more than 16 of DAL's 20 gates.

The DOJ specifically approved UA's transfer of their gates to WN based on DL's sublease which the Federal government noted had to provide DL continued access at DAL beyond the current DL sublease.

as I have noted before, WN has pushed the issue for so long that the likely outcome will be that DL will end up with more access to DAL than if WN had simply provided DAL with access for its current 5 flights.

and of course DL and WN both know that VX' future could provide further growth opportunities; both airlines are willing to push the case to try to gain those gates.

I predict that if DL wants to push for further access, it will be shown that WN does not have any antitrust protection and DL will be allowed to expand. If any other carrier wants to add access, Dl will be given priority because it was first in line with its request for expanded access.

DL, IMHO, is simply waiting for the legal process to play out and knows that it will eventually gain more access.

 

[swamt]

Does anyone really know how well virgin is doing in dal? Also has the move from DFW to dal helped or hurt virgin? Thanks

No one really knows right now how well Virgin is doing.  It will take one full year of Virgin flying out of DAL Love Field to get these types of results.  When Virgin offered the buy one get one free (with restrictions of course) it did indicate that they were struggling too get the seats filled.  I personally do not see it this way.  Virgin is has a fantastic product to offer at DAL Love Field as they have several different classes of seating to offer, including first class from Love Field, and also have great amenities as well.  As of current info I can tell you how well or how bad Virgin is doing at Love Field. However, I will also say that no one out here knows how well they are doing. And for someone to indicate the are hurting, is actually dead wrong at this point and time.  Virgin is saving big time bucks by relocating from DFW to DAL for landing fees, slots, taxi time, as well as turn times, so I believe they are doing better at DAL than they were doing at DFW...

 

[WorldTraveler]

we will know in a couple weeks with certainty how well VX is doing with fares because DOT data will become available.

and LF data is already available thru Dec 2014 and it shows that VX is underperforming WN on the routes it competes the two compete on from DAL and VX also underperforms DL and WN on an airport wide basis.

of course you and WN would rather have a weak VX tying up gates than run the risk that they will leave and the gates will end up in DL's hands because WN has run every other carrier off other than AA which agreed to leave DAL.

the savings in landing fees is negligible compared to the revenue shortfall.

and VX has already stated that their transcon performance is being hurt most likely by increased premium cabin competition so they have a lot riding on getting DAL right - but the public data says it is so far not going well.

There is a real high chance that VX' move from DFW to DAL will go down as one of the worst strategic decisions an airline has made and could have significantly negative implications for their future.

 

[eolesen]

swaamt, it won't take a year for this to be obvious -- there's already evidence VX is struggling, and and the next batch of T-100 data will just confirm it.

I agree that they do have a great product, but it's not something people will pay more for on a 2-3 hour flight, let alone something like DAL-AUS.

If VX can't maintain what they already had at DFW, then the only way to label this experiment is disastrous. Perhaps fatal.

 

[swamt]

swaamt, it won't take a year for this to be obvious -- there's already evidence VX is struggling, and and the next batch of T-100 data will just confirm it.

I agree that they do have a great product, but it's not something people will pay more for on a 2-3 hour flight, let alone something like DAL-AUS.

If VX can't maintain what they already had at DFW, then the only way to label this experiment is disastrous. Perhaps fatal.

Which brings me to ask you this, what was VX flying out of DFW?  I thought they increased their flying from what it was at DFW?  Most of the time we can get a better picture of how an airline is doing after a full year to how they were doing the prior year.  Pretty sure there will be Q reports as well as possibly even monthly reports if the airline chooses to do so.  Time will tell and we will all see.  I too believe they have a great product and I even thought that that is what might help them here at DAL against SWA with all the premium stuff SWA doesn't have, but I guess when it comes to the general public it is still price that rules over all. 

 

[Hope777]

So VX load factor is less then DL, they are still carrying more Pax.  Airbus has a few more seats then a CRJ

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL flies 717s.

VX has two full gates.

and VX and DL don't compete on any of the same routes.

VX competes against WN where WN outperforms VX on load factor in every market the two jointly serve.

E has accurately said that VX' tenure at DAL will likely not be very long.

 

[topDawg]

So VX load factor is less then DL, they are still carrying more Pax.  Airbus has a few more seats then a CRJ

Delta has 6 flights a day. 
 
Virgin has 15 or so flights a day..... its not rocket science why Delta carries less PAXs. 
 
and FWIW half of Delta's flights are 717s. 
 

The law was passed by Congress and approved by the DOJ and DOT, so when and where did you obtain you J.D.?

Are you saying everything the government does is right? 
Does that include the basic gutting of the RLA or do you only believe the government does everything right when it fits your bias?  

 

[swamt]

Delta has 6 flights a day. 
 
Virgin has 15 or so flights a day..... its not rocket science why Delta carries less PAXs. 
 
and FWIW half of Delta's flights are 717s. 
 
Are you saying everything the government does is right? 
Does that include the basic gutting of the RLA or do you only believe the government does everything right when it fits your bias?  

Actually Delta has only 5 flights out of DAL Love Field and I am told they are all on the 717's.  And VX will be at 18-20 flights by Aug this year.  We still await the outcome of the ruling if a suggestion or an order...

 

[Hope777]

Doesnt the 4th qtr Load Factors include DL's CRJ's to ATL?  Or did DL use the 717's the whole 1/4?  And looking at both JAN 2015 AND FEB2015, VX's market share increased slightly while DL's market share Decreased slightly.

 

[eolesen]

DL only flew RJ's for the first half of October. It jumped to 717's mid-month.

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL's ATL-DAL schedule after the Wright Amendment fell was actually a mix of 717s and CR9s until Nov when it became nearly all 717s with a very occasional CR9 which is what it is now.

Share is a reflection of DL's portion of the total amount of seats at DAL. Given that VX and WN are both adding seats and flights for now, DL's share will go down unless DL upgrades their flights to larger aircraft such as the M88 which is the primary aircraft on ATL-DFW. I wouldn't be surprised if that is what happens after DL's right to operate at DAL is confirmed.

 

[topDawg]

Actually Delta has only 5 flights out of DAL Love Field and I am told they are all on the 717's.  And VX will be at 18-20 flights by Aug this year.  We still await the outcome of the ruling if a suggestion or an order...

Whoops you are right. I didn't know it changed to all 717. 
but my point still stands, Virgin, even at lower load factors would have a higher marketshare because of the number of flight difference
 
If they didn't the Virgin would basically be flying empty planes.(which I imagine VXs problems aren't loads but yields)  
 

Doesnt the 4th qtr Load Factors include DL's CRJ's to ATL?  Or did DL use the 717's the whole 1/4?  And looking at both JAN 2015 AND FEB2015, VX's market share increased slightly while DL's market share Decreased slightly.

ATL-DAL was CRJ till the Wright changed (Mid Oct IIRC, the 14th is sticking out in my mind) then went to a mix of CR9/717. 

 

[eolesen]

If they didn't the Virgin would basically be flying empty planes.(which I imagine VXs problems aren't loads but yields)

Unfortunately, it appears to be a combination of both empty planes and crap yields.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm not sure it is valid to say that VX has low yields.

when they operated from DFW, they had average fares to LAX that were within a couple dollars of AA's and right on par with UA. To SFO, they were about 10% less than AA.

however, VX' LFs consistently have run 12-15 points below any other competitors; that was true at DFW and it appears to be coming true again at DAL.

A very similar dynamic exists at ORD to both LAX and SFO.

It appears that VX' business model simply cannot push as many passengers on a point to point flight as its competitors that operate hubs.

WN might have thought they could do better at DAL relative to DFW but I will bet that their average fares will go down at DAL with little ability to make up for it in yield.

VX may have thought that they could do better against WN because WN can't add near as much frequency as AA can at DFW but early indications are that WN still is filling a higher percentage of seats.

Given that VX has said their transcon revenues are falling as more carriers are adding capacity even though VX does keep up on LFs on the transcons, they may be pushed into a corner strategically from which they can't escape. Every one of their competitors operates a larger operation on just about every route VX operates and are also now offering much more improvd products than a few years ago.

VX' long-term success might be very much up in the air, esp. given that they have basically lobbed a "Hail Mary" with their DAL-AUS service.

I have a feeling that there will be more than just the 2 UA gates that will be in play at DAL before too long. VX is simply not a large enough company to be able to sustain 15-20 poor performing flights on top of a 'so so' network.