Actually, despite assurances that it is, you're right, we're not positive Ted is profitable. The only thing we DO know is that Jblu is NOT PROFITABLE, yet is still adding additional capacity at a loss.
B6 Continues to Blame DL for Over-Capacity
- Thread starter Ch. 12
- Start date
Actually, despite assurances that it is, you're right, we're not positive Ted is profitable. The only thing we DO know is that Jblu is NOT PROFITABLE, yet is still adding additional capacity at a loss.
GroundedBoricua
Senior
- May 29, 2004
- 300
- 0
Well think again, there IS a pretty good market in north jersey. Remember that there are millions that commute every day to Manhatten from Jersey so there alone you have a good market. Not to mention people from Jersey hate to drive into NYC for tons of reason. Their other airport option for people in the entire state of New Jersey is PHL, I don't think alot of people want to go there.
As per dividing NYC 5 boroughs preference, JFK is just to far from manhatten, plus the traffic on the Van Wyck is just un thinkable. JFK is good for people that live in Queens and long island. LGA is closest to Manhatten, but offers very limited mass transit options. Very close to the Bronx as well. Ewr is a little more farther for NYC but for lower manhatten and Staten Island its closer than the other 2 major airport.
Boricua -
Not saying that I disagree with you. It may turn out to be a good route for FL. I'm just saying that most New Yorkers have preferred to use LGA for a trip to Chicago for the same reason that Jerseyans don't use LGA or JFK. You may be correct that there is enough traffic from Jerseyans alone to make this work. As we both noted, there are millions in Jersey.
Not saying that I disagree with you. It may turn out to be a good route for FL. I'm just saying that most New Yorkers have preferred to use LGA for a trip to Chicago for the same reason that Jerseyans don't use LGA or JFK. You may be correct that there is enough traffic from Jerseyans alone to make this work. As we both noted, there are millions in Jersey.
- Thread Starter
- #64
Titan-
Admit it already. We ALL know that EWR/JFK/LGA are all considered alternates while ORD/MDW are alternates. That is why they are priced the same (NYC and CHI respectively). CO has not been in EWR to get only NJers to destinations and WN has not flown MDW to get only Cicero residents to their destinations. They fly them for NYers and Chicagoans. So for FL to enter CHI-NYC shortly after DL entered the market is definitely an attack on DL and you choose to ignore b/c it doesn't support your very faulty hypothesis that poor little LCCs are being attacked by legacies while minding their own business and not contributing to excess capacity issues. If you're going to use an argument against a legacy, you must also use it against your "blameless" LCCs. They ain't all saints, you know...not even your blessed B6.
Admit it already. We ALL know that EWR/JFK/LGA are all considered alternates while ORD/MDW are alternates. That is why they are priced the same (NYC and CHI respectively). CO has not been in EWR to get only NJers to destinations and WN has not flown MDW to get only Cicero residents to their destinations. They fly them for NYers and Chicagoans. So for FL to enter CHI-NYC shortly after DL entered the market is definitely an attack on DL and you choose to ignore b/c it doesn't support your very faulty hypothesis that poor little LCCs are being attacked by legacies while minding their own business and not contributing to excess capacity issues. If you're going to use an argument against a legacy, you must also use it against your "blameless" LCCs. They ain't all saints, you know...not even your blessed B6.
Ch 12 -
Never said they were saints. Actually, I think they've done some fairly slimy things in the past - especially their pay-to-play deals when they would launch new markets (e.g. north Florida and Wichita). I also don't think the folks in Harrisburg, PA, would have too many nice things to say about FL.
I would agree that ORD/MDW are much the same market - however that's not nearly so much the case with EWR/LGA/JFK. Some overlap, yes, but still some very distinct passenger pools. If you really believe the three New York metro airports serve the same people, then you've clearly never lived in the NYC/NJ area. I have.
I would say that most people who live in Jersey NEVER use the other two airports (LGA, JFK). The traffic is just too brutal and too unpredictable. I have relatives who have lived in Jersey for decades and have never once used the other two. As another poster pointed out, they might be more inclined to use Philly than LGA or JFK.
Further, even if you don't want to concede that argument, why is this an attack on DL? Why not UA or AA? They dominate the NYC-Chicago market. Additionally, FL has slots at LGA, why not launch the flights from there if they really want to level an unprofitable attack on other carriers? Are you not willing to concede that this could actually be a profitable route for FL?
History has shown that FL hasn't spent too much time trying to launch irrational attacks on DL...seems they've been too busy actually making money to be bothered.
Never said they were saints. Actually, I think they've done some fairly slimy things in the past - especially their pay-to-play deals when they would launch new markets (e.g. north Florida and Wichita). I also don't think the folks in Harrisburg, PA, would have too many nice things to say about FL.
I would agree that ORD/MDW are much the same market - however that's not nearly so much the case with EWR/LGA/JFK. Some overlap, yes, but still some very distinct passenger pools. If you really believe the three New York metro airports serve the same people, then you've clearly never lived in the NYC/NJ area. I have.
I would say that most people who live in Jersey NEVER use the other two airports (LGA, JFK). The traffic is just too brutal and too unpredictable. I have relatives who have lived in Jersey for decades and have never once used the other two. As another poster pointed out, they might be more inclined to use Philly than LGA or JFK.
Further, even if you don't want to concede that argument, why is this an attack on DL? Why not UA or AA? They dominate the NYC-Chicago market. Additionally, FL has slots at LGA, why not launch the flights from there if they really want to level an unprofitable attack on other carriers? Are you not willing to concede that this could actually be a profitable route for FL?
History has shown that FL hasn't spent too much time trying to launch irrational attacks on DL...seems they've been too busy actually making money to be bothered.
And I'm sure that UAL lost billions with a B last quarter. Will JetBlue turn it around? I don't really know. But your pal 767jetz has a mighty big chip on his shoulder for an airline that has lost billions and has a business plan that is questionable. We'll see what unfolds.
I suppose that's possible, but I find it hard to believe. First of all, if Ted were profitable I suspect that management would say so, if only to prove that their decision was correct. Second, there would be a huge expansion of Ted. Third, then UA's large losses would be coming totally from mainline domestic. All highly unlikely.
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
- First of all, management doesn't need to prove anything to the outside world. Their focus is on internal affairs, not revealing competetive information.
- Second, there has been steady and consistent expansion of Ted. HUGE expansion is better left to the Jet Blues and People's Express' of the world.
- Third, UA hasn't reported anything since leaving BK protection. The large losses you refer to were more due to bankruptcy related costs and write downs than anything else. Just look at the increasing cash position to get a feel for what's really happening on a day to day basis. Let's see what the quarterly and final '06 results are before you claim that UA has large losses.
- Thread Starter
- #69
Flying Titan and other non-believers:
I have finally been able to get data from the bts website and I must say that it isn't a surprise for any of us other than Titan as far as what it shows.
I looked at the full year 2000 (since I think we can all agree that it is the last year before the industry really started its tailspin) vs. the full year 2005. I looked at domestic ASMS for ALL passenger carriers down to and including the little guys in AK. I EVEN counted all of DL's current commuter carriers as DL (even though Freedom flies largely for HP/US and DL is hardly the sole beneficiary of Chatauqua's, et als, service) just to inflate DL's figures for Titan. Keep that in mind, though, as DL's figures should be lower than what I am getting ready to report.
2000 total ASMS = 703billion vs. 681billion in 2005 (3.1% decrease)
Of those carriers adding to an INCREASE in ASMS (or countering the decrease that is/was needed), B6 added 20billion ASMS while the over-inflated DL reduced ASMS by 4.6 billion. B6 beat out even WN who added 18billion ASMs during the same period (followed by FL at 8billion). The largest reductions came from UA (33billion) and TW, of course. Also keep in mind that DL's figures should actually be much lower if I wasn't so conservative by adding in skywest, ASA, freedom, shuttle america, chatauqua, etc. Skywest alone added 8.7billion ASMs but they currently fly 74% of their flights for UA and NOT DL. Chautauqua flies 73% of its flights for carriers other than DL and had a 5billion gain in ASMS. So even trying to lessen the difference between B6 and DL, DL sure has pulled ALOT of capacity while B6 has added the most.
How is DL responsible for too much capacity and not B6?
Here are the top carriers increasing and reducing ASMs since 2000.
carrier ASM increase
B6 19,926,692,827
WN 17,947,482,998
FL 7,968,323,003
YV 7,208,537,564
OH 5,150,483,335
9E 5,026,257,074
RU 4,926,722,201
MQ 4,240,377,088
DH 3,937,546,243
F9 3,685,659,374
carrier ASM reduction
UA -33,039,114,288
TW -31,599,856,168
US -20,159,125,750
NW -10,571,506,930
CO -8,250,055,577
DL -4,589,661,048
N7 -3,978,112,097
AA -3,172,170,888
JI -2,083,113,766
NJ -1,624,502,280
So long, Titan. Let reality settle in and take a logical look at the excessive capacity issue and quit coming up with putrid excuses for why you think that B6 is a victim rather than THE REASON. Know thyself.
I have finally been able to get data from the bts website and I must say that it isn't a surprise for any of us other than Titan as far as what it shows.
I looked at the full year 2000 (since I think we can all agree that it is the last year before the industry really started its tailspin) vs. the full year 2005. I looked at domestic ASMS for ALL passenger carriers down to and including the little guys in AK. I EVEN counted all of DL's current commuter carriers as DL (even though Freedom flies largely for HP/US and DL is hardly the sole beneficiary of Chatauqua's, et als, service) just to inflate DL's figures for Titan. Keep that in mind, though, as DL's figures should be lower than what I am getting ready to report.
2000 total ASMS = 703billion vs. 681billion in 2005 (3.1% decrease)
Of those carriers adding to an INCREASE in ASMS (or countering the decrease that is/was needed), B6 added 20billion ASMS while the over-inflated DL reduced ASMS by 4.6 billion. B6 beat out even WN who added 18billion ASMs during the same period (followed by FL at 8billion). The largest reductions came from UA (33billion) and TW, of course. Also keep in mind that DL's figures should actually be much lower if I wasn't so conservative by adding in skywest, ASA, freedom, shuttle america, chatauqua, etc. Skywest alone added 8.7billion ASMs but they currently fly 74% of their flights for UA and NOT DL. Chautauqua flies 73% of its flights for carriers other than DL and had a 5billion gain in ASMS. So even trying to lessen the difference between B6 and DL, DL sure has pulled ALOT of capacity while B6 has added the most.
How is DL responsible for too much capacity and not B6?
Here are the top carriers increasing and reducing ASMs since 2000.
carrier ASM increase
B6 19,926,692,827
WN 17,947,482,998
FL 7,968,323,003
YV 7,208,537,564
OH 5,150,483,335
9E 5,026,257,074
RU 4,926,722,201
MQ 4,240,377,088
DH 3,937,546,243
F9 3,685,659,374
carrier ASM reduction
UA -33,039,114,288
TW -31,599,856,168
US -20,159,125,750
NW -10,571,506,930
CO -8,250,055,577
DL -4,589,661,048
N7 -3,978,112,097
AA -3,172,170,888
JI -2,083,113,766
NJ -1,624,502,280
So long, Titan. Let reality settle in and take a logical look at the excessive capacity issue and quit coming up with putrid excuses for why you think that B6 is a victim rather than THE REASON. Know thyself.
- Thread Starter
- #70
Titan-
What?! No reply? You've been quite active since I posted but don't seem to be able to refute what the numbers so clearly state. I'll rest my case that we can call B6 the carrier MOST responsible for excess capacity and that DL has actually worked to REDUCE capacity in the industry. Hard to reduce it when B6 is willing to add 4 times the capacity being taken out.
What?! No reply? You've been quite active since I posted but don't seem to be able to refute what the numbers so clearly state. I'll rest my case that we can call B6 the carrier MOST responsible for excess capacity and that DL has actually worked to REDUCE capacity in the industry. Hard to reduce it when B6 is willing to add 4 times the capacity being taken out.
Ch 12-
I've enjoyed this discussion and will certainly post an appropriate reply (other posts have been quick no-brainers). Sorry for the delay, simply haven't had the time to give it the thought it deserves - really.
I've enjoyed this discussion and will certainly post an appropriate reply (other posts have been quick no-brainers). Sorry for the delay, simply haven't had the time to give it the thought it deserves - really.
- Thread Starter
- #73
Yeah...that really was a conversation-stopper. Perhaps the B6 announcement that they are expanding out of JFK to some of the same cities that DL announced a couple of weeks earlier also puts a wrench in the idea that B6 is a victim rather than the cause of capacity issues. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that it is B6 that is trying to kill off DL...the same thing that Titan accused DL of trying with US. Can't dispute the facts of B6's actions.
Ch 12 -
Didn't know that so many people were hanging on our every word in this conversation. Sorry that I've had other - more pressing - priorities in life for the last week or two.
Now, for my promised reply to your digging through BTS data. I'm kinda scratching my head to figure out your point with these numbers. You choose to go back to 2000 and compare ASM growth. You point out that B6 has grown much more dramatically than other carriers during this period. Excuse me for my somewhat technical response, but..."Well, Duh!" In 2000, B6 was in its infancy (first flight in early 2000). Of course it was going to grow at a much more rapid pace than long established carriers. It's certainly not going to shrink in its first five years of existence. Has any successful carrier in history ever done such a thing?
Your data simply goes back to a question that I asked early on in this thread. If you follow that logic, could any new airline start service without being responsible for excess capacity? If not, then there's not much point to this conversation. If yes, then under what conditions would you prescribe?
Further, as a general question, when should any airline expand on a route? As a loose rule of thumb, profitable routes with more than 80% LF have historically been accepted as good candidates for expansion according to many route planners and airports seeking additional service. I think it's generally about right. Do you agree? What's a better standard?
For most of B6's existence, this scenario has accurately described their NY - Florida flying. It has enjoyed very high load factors, has been profitable, and has pulled down higher average fares than the competition. Traditionally, that would be reason to add flights not reduce them. As B6 added capacity on these routes, DL added even more. The difference, of course, is that B6 was doing it to make money - DL was doing it to attack B6.
You and others have brought up the point that a carrier has a right to fight for market share, even if it means losing money in the process. I suppose that's a valid point of view, but it's hard to turn around then and blame the other guy for overcapacity.
On a systemwide basis, your data clearly shows that DL (and others) are shrinking while B6 the other LCCs continue to grow. This is no surprise. If you're making money, you can afford to grow, if you're losing money at a record pace, it's a lot tougher.
Didn't know that so many people were hanging on our every word in this conversation. Sorry that I've had other - more pressing - priorities in life for the last week or two.
Now, for my promised reply to your digging through BTS data. I'm kinda scratching my head to figure out your point with these numbers. You choose to go back to 2000 and compare ASM growth. You point out that B6 has grown much more dramatically than other carriers during this period. Excuse me for my somewhat technical response, but..."Well, Duh!" In 2000, B6 was in its infancy (first flight in early 2000). Of course it was going to grow at a much more rapid pace than long established carriers. It's certainly not going to shrink in its first five years of existence. Has any successful carrier in history ever done such a thing?
Your data simply goes back to a question that I asked early on in this thread. If you follow that logic, could any new airline start service without being responsible for excess capacity? If not, then there's not much point to this conversation. If yes, then under what conditions would you prescribe?
Further, as a general question, when should any airline expand on a route? As a loose rule of thumb, profitable routes with more than 80% LF have historically been accepted as good candidates for expansion according to many route planners and airports seeking additional service. I think it's generally about right. Do you agree? What's a better standard?
For most of B6's existence, this scenario has accurately described their NY - Florida flying. It has enjoyed very high load factors, has been profitable, and has pulled down higher average fares than the competition. Traditionally, that would be reason to add flights not reduce them. As B6 added capacity on these routes, DL added even more. The difference, of course, is that B6 was doing it to make money - DL was doing it to attack B6.
You and others have brought up the point that a carrier has a right to fight for market share, even if it means losing money in the process. I suppose that's a valid point of view, but it's hard to turn around then and blame the other guy for overcapacity.
On a systemwide basis, your data clearly shows that DL (and others) are shrinking while B6 the other LCCs continue to grow. This is no surprise. If you're making money, you can afford to grow, if you're losing money at a record pace, it's a lot tougher.
Similar threads
