My point is more how DL makes CVG-midwest work where US Airways has trouble making PIT-midwest work... CVG has RJ service to OMA, DSM, Appleton, Madison, Cedar Rapids, Green Bay, etc, etc, yet US Airways can't seem to make these places work from PIT...Kev3188 said:
Your Top Ten
- Thread starter Light Years
- Start date
ringmaruf
Veteran
And at the time, US *did* in fact have a little bit of name recognition in OMA, with the Air Midwest flights to MCI. (Those are also gone now.)ITRADE said:
Kev3188
Veteran
Agreed. U also had a very short lived PIT-MSN service that proves your theory (while DL's RJ service to CVG is still going).funguy2 said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
CVG works for DL because it is just plain huge when it comes to the number of markets served. There are tons of RJs there, a handful of international flights, and the usual mainline markets which any hub needs. It is doubtful that any airline will be able to replicate what DL did in CVG (which is pretty similarly sized to PIT) just because DL got in their and did it first. Places like CHA and DSM don't generate a huge amount of local traffic to any hub so it doesn't really matter what hub those cities have service to - they just need to be connected to a hub. US could easily do that w/ any of their hubs - if the competitive environment has not moved to the point of limiting US' ability to enter new markets.
Note also that CVG does not have service to most of the secondary cities in the west - that is done through either SLC or DFW which are closer or ATL which generates far more traffic.
US needs some good ideas but I'm not sure that there is enough time left to make them work - opening any new market is costly.
Note also that CVG does not have service to most of the secondary cities in the west - that is done through either SLC or DFW which are closer or ATL which generates far more traffic.
US needs some good ideas but I'm not sure that there is enough time left to make them work - opening any new market is costly.
I dont think it would be too costly for US. The CSA/Fleet ramp both allow someone else to work the new flights I believe (and Express doesnt have a say) so that could all be contract work for someone else. US doesnt market itself, so no advertising budget. 😛 Just the cost of loading it into the computer and putting up a sign or two at the airport and you got a new city.WorldTraveler said:
Funguy,
Let's forget OMA b/c that is just as much east coast as it is west coast and it isn't the small markets in the middle that I refer to when I say that U is missing the boat to the west coast. Again...U is not going to make a killing by expanding into more and more puddle jumper routes and they are never going to make it if they keep relying on the dried up high-yield demand up and down the east coast. U is stuck in the past and that is great for the LCCs that have more forward-thinking plans.
I think that U does not need a major hub in the west, but they need at least a focus city or two. U's pax need better ability to get to the west (way west...not the plains...I'm talking NM/CO and beyond). By only connecting WC cities to PIT, PHL, or CLT, that limits greatly the market that U is serving (eastern seaboard to the west). It is essentially a point to point venture that U is providing from their hubs to western cities and that makes no sense for a hub carrier.
It's the talk of "that is too costly" or "that will never work" that keeps U stuck in the EAS markets hoping that subsisdies are increased to generate profits. Rapid expansion by the LCCs tells me that there are creative ways to make new markets less costly. And I don't agree with ITRADE that there should be concern that U is not that recognized beyond the east. Truth is that U has been around for a long time and even without a massive presence in the west...they are definitely known and it wouldn't take much to make the network work. By adding the west in a logical manner (large markets, big planes, and connecting point(s) on the other side of the Mississippi), U would add tremendous value to it's existing EC markets as well as create enourmous potential through diversification of markets. Move on, U...move on...
Let's forget OMA b/c that is just as much east coast as it is west coast and it isn't the small markets in the middle that I refer to when I say that U is missing the boat to the west coast. Again...U is not going to make a killing by expanding into more and more puddle jumper routes and they are never going to make it if they keep relying on the dried up high-yield demand up and down the east coast. U is stuck in the past and that is great for the LCCs that have more forward-thinking plans.
I think that U does not need a major hub in the west, but they need at least a focus city or two. U's pax need better ability to get to the west (way west...not the plains...I'm talking NM/CO and beyond). By only connecting WC cities to PIT, PHL, or CLT, that limits greatly the market that U is serving (eastern seaboard to the west). It is essentially a point to point venture that U is providing from their hubs to western cities and that makes no sense for a hub carrier.
It's the talk of "that is too costly" or "that will never work" that keeps U stuck in the EAS markets hoping that subsisdies are increased to generate profits. Rapid expansion by the LCCs tells me that there are creative ways to make new markets less costly. And I don't agree with ITRADE that there should be concern that U is not that recognized beyond the east. Truth is that U has been around for a long time and even without a massive presence in the west...they are definitely known and it wouldn't take much to make the network work. By adding the west in a logical manner (large markets, big planes, and connecting point(s) on the other side of the Mississippi), U would add tremendous value to it's existing EC markets as well as create enourmous potential through diversification of markets. Move on, U...move on...
The initial capital outlay isn't bad, but you still end up having to pay a revenue guarantee to the regional operator (i.e. Mesa, Chautauqua, Trans States, etc.), put up some money for marketing (or what's the point?), pay the contractor at the outstation, etc. You're almost always going to eat some losses when starting a new route; the question is whether the future profits justify it.tadjr said:I dont think it would be too costly for US. The CSA/Fleet ramp both allow someone else to work the new flights I believe (and Express doesnt have a say) so that could all be contract work for someone else. US doesnt market itself, so no advertising budget. 😛 Just the cost of loading it into the computer and putting up a sign or two at the airport and you got a new city.
Ch 12:
Can you give an idea of what you are thinking? Are you thinking something like an LAX focus city (like Frontier and America West are trying)? Go back to things like LAX-CMH/IND? COS focus city?
I hear what you are saying from a high-level perspective. I just don't see many real world specific examples of what US Airways could do successfully.
Can you give an idea of what you are thinking? Are you thinking something like an LAX focus city (like Frontier and America West are trying)? Go back to things like LAX-CMH/IND? COS focus city?
I hear what you are saying from a high-level perspective. I just don't see many real world specific examples of what US Airways could do successfully.
Cosmo
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 840
- Reaction score
- 0
Ch. 12:
Isn't that the whole point of the codeshare with United, to flow US Airways' passengers through the DEN, LAX and SFO hubs to large and small cities throughout the west? US Airways could never get that kind of market coverage on its own.
Isn't that the whole point of the codeshare with United, to flow US Airways' passengers through the DEN, LAX and SFO hubs to large and small cities throughout the west? US Airways could never get that kind of market coverage on its own.
DorkDriver
Advanced
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 0
Domestic
1. SGF
2. SAT
3. AUS
4. SJC
5. SLC
6. PDX
7. ABQ
8. RNO
9. COS
10. DAB
International
1. POZ
2. WAW
3. CPH
4. VIE
5. ARN
6. VCE
7. ZRH
8. MIL
9. NRT
10. BCN
1. SGF
2. SAT
3. AUS
4. SJC
5. SLC
6. PDX
7. ABQ
8. RNO
9. COS
10. DAB
International
1. POZ
2. WAW
3. CPH
4. VIE
5. ARN
6. VCE
7. ZRH
8. MIL
9. NRT
10. BCN
I think that alot more opportunity exists than most of us think. A few years ago, I didn't anticipate LGB becoming a formidable focus city of a large carrier.funguy2 said:
I'd love to say that COS would work b/c that seems to be the secret recipe that will be wonderful when done correctly but nobody has quite figured it out yet. Maybe it is too small. Look at LA, though. There are several airports that serve substantial populations and are ripe for a focus city. Maybe ONT, maybe SNA, maybe BUR...who knows. Like I said...I never saw LGB coming and that has been a boon for JB.
If U could have even one focus city out there, they could pipe many flights directly to it and have their typical commuter feed going up and down the left coast. This would connect anything that isn't on the eastern seaboard to the west which is the area where U is currently missing the boat entirely. Forget UA codeshares...U needs this as part of their own network.
But it is important to not be timid about such a move. Typically, this kind of action is not backed up and management deems it a failure before it even begins. There must be confidence and agressiveness to make it work. I think that the feeder carriers could be much better off in more formidable markets.
So I ramble on, but I see any of the LA airports as well as RNO, SMF, FAT (another shaky one that seems like some day it will be done right...but not yet), and probably countless others.
Just to restate...I think that we all believe that everything is drying up quickly but the LGB example makes me feel that maybe we aren't thinking hard enough.
Ch. 12:
How is this any different from the PSA acquision, where US Airways had lage focus cities at both LAX and SFO, and a faily sizeable operation at most other California airports, as well as LAS, SEA, and, PHX. And of course, this was amid much less LCC competition.
Again, this sounds like back to the future. Yes, JB did make a splash with LGB. But they are regulated to something like 25 flights/day, and have very little of the feed you are suggesting... So I am not sure why you show LGB as the example, and then immediately drift off the path of the successful example.
Also, the LA Basin has a huge presences of LCC carriers. So if US Airways does go into this market, it would need to have LCC costs. JBlu could move into LGB because its costs are comparable to Southwest and America West. US Airways' costs are almost double the LCC's. Translation: Southwest, JetBlue, and AWA can profit while undercutting US Airways, ensuring a loss for US Airways.
How is this any different from the PSA acquision, where US Airways had lage focus cities at both LAX and SFO, and a faily sizeable operation at most other California airports, as well as LAS, SEA, and, PHX. And of course, this was amid much less LCC competition.
Again, this sounds like back to the future. Yes, JB did make a splash with LGB. But they are regulated to something like 25 flights/day, and have very little of the feed you are suggesting... So I am not sure why you show LGB as the example, and then immediately drift off the path of the successful example.
Also, the LA Basin has a huge presences of LCC carriers. So if US Airways does go into this market, it would need to have LCC costs. JBlu could move into LGB because its costs are comparable to Southwest and America West. US Airways' costs are almost double the LCC's. Translation: Southwest, JetBlue, and AWA can profit while undercutting US Airways, ensuring a loss for US Airways.
funguy2 said:
The difference is timing. US was never serious about giving the west a go because only a year after PSA, they took over Piedmont to beef up the east and international routes. Also of note is that old HP was expanding and WN had begun its "takeover" of the west a few years earlier. With Piedmont, US saw more opportunity on the east as the LCCs had no presence at all. Hence...the west was never given a fair chance. Kind of like AA-TW. AA had no intent to keep STL...they wanted jets.
funguy2 said:
Maybe I misunderstand you, but if you are referring to me listing cities other than LGB that is b/c...well...LGB is spoke for. I used it as an example...not THE example. It is an example of a little thought of gem that JB planned well to capture.
funguy2 said:
I also think this is incorrect. If you look at the cities I mentioned, they have little n/s traffic. Sure, WN serves all of the LA airports but to limited destinations. And I'm still not sure I'd classify HP as "LCC" but rather a "LFC" (low fare carrier). The are cutting their costs but are still nowhere near a true LCC. Perhaps that is a model for U???
The main difference between the east and the west is that there is a huge void right in the middle of the east coast so a carrier has limited potential (must fly NE-FL and those are quite picked-apart by the LCCs). The west used to be the lone stronghold of LCCs but not so much anymore. Major cities exist in the middle and could create a better situation for focus cities.
But then again...why try something truly new? I'm sure that the LCCs will jump back towards the midwest/west coast as the east continues to crumble. You have to be an opportunist to continue to be profitable in this industry...and that means being willing to truly try making something "new" work.
Ch. 12.
I am not sure where you are living... but by my count... Southwest has the following number of departures from each city:
BUR: 52
LAX: 115
ONT: 58
SNA: 30
RNO: 42
SMF: 75
Furthermore, all Southwest has to do is fly to a city in order to dominate its pricing. For example, PHL-LAX pricing will now be set by Southwest, even though they do not fly it non-stop.
Q1 CASM (all include fuel):
America West: 7.59 cents
Southwest: 7.82 cents
AirTran: 8.26 cents
JetBlue: 6.08 cents
US Airways 11.68 cents
If having CASM less than Southwest and AirTran doesn't make you an LCC, I don't know what does.
The LGB comments. You said:
JetBlue is successful at LGB dispite not having a significant N/S feed. They do have service to OAK, but that is it. I beleive that LAS and SLC are gone (or going shortly).
I am not sure where you are living... but by my count... Southwest has the following number of departures from each city:
BUR: 52
LAX: 115
ONT: 58
SNA: 30
RNO: 42
SMF: 75
Furthermore, all Southwest has to do is fly to a city in order to dominate its pricing. For example, PHL-LAX pricing will now be set by Southwest, even though they do not fly it non-stop.
Q1 CASM (all include fuel):
America West: 7.59 cents
Southwest: 7.82 cents
AirTran: 8.26 cents
JetBlue: 6.08 cents
US Airways 11.68 cents
If having CASM less than Southwest and AirTran doesn't make you an LCC, I don't know what does.
The LGB comments. You said:
JetBlue is successful at LGB dispite not having a significant N/S feed. They do have service to OAK, but that is it. I beleive that LAS and SLC are gone (or going shortly).
