New Phl Flights

[weatherman]

Wow, looks like US is really trying to defend PHL. They are adding a bunch of new flights in Oct. PVD will be up to 10 daily with mainline.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040721/dcw030_1.html

With the new schedule, PVD will have 22 mainline flights a day. I believe this is the most PVD has ever seen from US including the MetroJet days.

 

[BoeingBoy]

It may just be coincidence, but AirTran is dropping their ATL-TLH service in October.

Jim

CORRECTION: In September. It's discussed here

Jim

 

[weatherman]

I am sure US had no impact on AirTran's decision to leave TLH. AirTran left TLH because DL started TPA service. That was the last staw.

The interesting question is whether US knows AirTran is pulling the plug? It is making news in TLH, but not nationally. I wonder is they will keep the Go Fares for TLH once AirTran exits. Currently they are offering Go Fares to DCA and now PHL. Although they have always been offered as TLH and PNS (AirTran stations).

 

[FM2436]

I am sure US had no impact on AirTran's decision to leave TLH. AirTran left TLH because DL started TPA service. That was the last staw.

Weatherman:

While your right that US Airways had no impact on AirTrans decision to leave TLH, it does sound like Delta's RJs in TLH did have an impact. Question is, "Did Delta's RJs beat a LCC out of the TLH market?"


From your own post taken from the AirTrans message board.

Not much of a surprise, but FL is leaving the TLH-TPA market Jul 23. Not much advance notice. DL began 4 RJs a day June 1. After FL ran US out of the market, it now looks like DL is having the last laugh. Theynow dominate TLH with nonstop service to: ATL, CVG, DFW, FLL, MCO, MIA, PBI, and TPA.

I wonder how long it will be until AirTran pulls the plug entirely on TLH. I can't see just 2 daily to ATL as being very profitable.

 

[Rob]

US should be shifting their most seat-mile efficient aircraft (321's and 757's?) to PHL - not adding (short-haul, especially) frequencies. Didn't they learn anything at BWI?

 

[FM2436]

US should be shifting their most seat-mile efficient aircraft (321's and 757's?) to PHL - not adding (short-haul, especially) frequencies. Didn't they learn anything at BWI?

Rob:

But isn't high frequency between tow high population markets a part of the success of the Southwest business model?

 

[Rob]

When you can't charge profitable fares, adding frequencies only makes your disadvantage larger. The better way to accomodate the low fare-generated traffic increase is to add capacity by using your most seat-mile efficient aircraft on the route, thus lowering your seat-mile operating costs and totally avoiding the fixed costs associated with another frequency. Put the 321's and 757's in PHL and the costlier seat-mile planes in CLT and PIT.

If the route isn't profitable, trying to maintain market share is a mistake.

I'm hesitant to criticize the pros as much as I did here, but the circumstances seemed to call for a comment. I don't run an airline nor have access to all the route data; so this is just my opinion of how US should apply basic transportation principles.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Therein lies the problem with a static mainline fleet with all available financing going to RJ acquisition.

Nearly half the fleet - the 737's - cannot serve many of the markets we serve, i.e. Western US and Caribbean/Latin America. They either don't have the range or the overwater capability.

Jim

 

[biztraveller29]

I fail to see how adding more capacity to money-losing routes (for U) will help U return to profitability. WN is not some upstart LCC who will withdraw from a route if U floods the marketplace. In a war of attrition, I'd place my money with WN. Seems to me U should be concentrating on strengthening its long-distance/transcontinental markets rather than providing 10x per day to PVD.

But oh well, I'm not in charge...

 

[phillyguy]

And still no direct PHL-MEM -

 

[BoeingBoy]

As long as the extra flights are coming about thru increased a/c utilization (the extra time each plane flys means more segments per day), then the incremental cost of those flights is low. So in theory we could make money on them.

However, if RJ's are replacing mainline in some markets, freeing up mainline a/c for these new flights, the cost is the same.

The unanswered question is which is it.

Jim

 

[Rob]

As long as the extra flights are coming about thru increased a/c utilization (the extra time each plane flys means more segments per day), then the incremental cost of those flights is low. So in theory we could make money on them.

Good point, but the additional frequency still costs another crew, operating costs, and station costs, quite possibly raising average seat-mile costs on the route; whereas using bigger planes on the same number of frequencies, will reduce average seat-mile costs and guarantee improved financial performance.

The unknown factor is whether the larger planes are making more money on the much higher fares in PIT and CLT than they could generate from the traffic increase in PHL.

 

[DCAflyer]

Therein lies the problem with a static mainline fleet with all available financing going to RJ acquisition.

Nearly half the fleet - the 737's - cannot serve many of the markets we serve, i.e. Western US and Caribbean/Latin America. They either don't have the range or the overwater capability.

Jim

Since when don't 73's have the range to hit the west coast? What do you think LUV flies?

 

[biztraveller29]

Since when don't 73's have the range to hit the west coast? What do you think LUV flies?

As far as I know, WN flies 737-700s transcon. And also as far as I know, U does not have any 737-NGs. U only has 737-300s, which do NOT have the range to do transcon.

 

[Harry Callahan]

As far as I know, WN flies 737-700s transcon. And also as far as I know, U does not have any 737-NGs. U only has 737-300s, which do NOT have the range to do transcon.

Jim:
Where are you help us out here.