F9 Pulling Out Of Lax-msp

[weatherman]

Looks like NW won this battle. Beginning Aug 14, Frontier will no longer serve the LAX - MSP market N/S.

I thought they said the summer booking were looking strong, but I guess not since they aren't waiting until Sept to cancel the flights.

 

[Bigsky]

Not surprising. I think F9 is a good airline and will do well relocating their efforts to other cities from LAX. Wonder how long it will be before NW discontinues LAX DEN.

cheers

bigsky

 

[coolflyingfool]

This will allow NW to raise their fares again to normal rates. I think all the big airlines do it, it is just a matter of the competition. I feel sorry for the consumers. Just my thoughts.....

 

[JetClipper]

There was an article in the Star Tribune (a Twin Cities newspaper) today indicating that the F9 MSP-LAX flights often were going out with as few as 30 seats filled. I guess NWA once again proved that they do not play well with others.

On a related note, I wonder if this will lead to NWA eliminating the two daily DEN-LAX roundtrips. I have heard the loads are fairly strong (of course, F9 said that about their LAX-MSP services), but they are competing with AA, F9, and UA between cities where they do not have particularly strong presences.

 

[Busdrvr]

On a related note, I wonder if this will lead to NWA eliminating the two daily DEN-LAX roundtrips. I have heard the loads are fairly strong (of course, F9 said that about their LAX-MSP services), but they are competing with AA, F9, and UA between cities where they do not have particularly strong presences.

Sept 1 according to the Rocky Mountain News

 

[JetClipper]

Sept 1 according to the Rocky Mountain News

I just read the article. Thanks!

 

[coolflyingfool]

This is a first for me. The airlines got together and said I'll stop mine if you stop yours. This way they can both make money instead of lose. Good thing I was sitting down when I read that. Just my thoughts.....

 

[Kev3188]

Sept 1 according to the Rocky Mountain News

Good. Now maybe they can redeploy that capacity somewhere productive....Of the few times I checked the loads, the best was, I think, 55/148.

 

[Busdrvr]

Good. Now maybe they can redeploy that capacity somewhere productive....Of the few times I checked the loads, the best was, I think, 55/148.

IMHO, kicking the living sh1T out of an LCC that's seeking to displace your capacity with theirs (at much lower pay, ect...) is a D@mn "productive" use of a few jets...... Good Job!!!!

 

[funguy2]

This is a first for me. The airlines got together and said I'll stop mine if you stop yours. This way they can both make money instead of lose. Good thing I was sitting down when I read that. Just my thoughts.....

I don't think they "got together"

I think F9 no longer wanted to sustain a loss, cancelled LAX-MSP. They are also reducing LAX-MCI and LAX-STL to one daily. So I think F9 may be "rethinking" their LAX strategy... I am sure NWA doesn't care what F9 does on LAX-STL/MCI

Then, when NWA got what it wanted, its next priority is to minimize its own losses, which means moving its LAX-DEN capacity somewhere productive, now that LAX-MSP has been "saved"

You suggest that execs of the two airlines discussed these moves, and I suggest they did not. That would be called collusion, and its illegal. A more detailed explanation can be provided by Bob Crandall and Howard Putnam 😉 Reality is that NWA announced DEN-LAX within hours of F9's LAX-MSP announcement (how knee-jerk is that), so I am not surprised to see the discontinuation announcement made very close together as well.

 

[coolflyingfool]

Hey FUNGUY2 -

I think there was some sort of "feeler" put out by F9 to NW to see if they would pull. I am not saying they sat down together and talked it out, but there is no way they pull out of competing markets within hours of each other. Just my thoughts....

 

[C54Capt]

Hey FUNGUY2 -

I think there was some sort of "feeler" put out by F9 to NW to see if they would pull. I am not saying they sat down together and talked it out, but there is no way they pull out of competing markets within hours of each other. Just my thoughts....

I can confgirm that (unofficially of course). F-9 is redeploying their available capacity to compete with a much weaker adversary based out of DEN who resembles Alfred E. Newman (TED).

 

[NWA/AMT]

You suggest that execs of the two airlines discussed these moves, and I suggest they did not. That would be called collusion, and its illegal. A more detailed explanation can be provided by Bob Crandall and Howard Putnam.

Actually the conduct that got Crandall in trouble was his attempt to collude with Braniff on prices, not routes. Assuming, of course, that they did coordinate their decision, it should be noted that since neither F9 or NW are the only airlines serving the LAX/MSP market (however indirectly) their actions may appear to meet the Webster's definition, but do not meet the legal definition of collusion.

 

[funguy2]

Hey FUNGUY2 -

I think there was some sort of "feeler" put out by F9 to NW to see if they would pull. I am not saying they sat down together and talked it out, but there is no way they pull out of competing markets within hours of each other. Just my thoughts....

Look, I have no evidence either way. But, lets face it... NWA made its announcement to start service on DEN-LAX about 4 hours after F9 announced LAX-MSP. I doubt highly F9 put out feelers on that one.

So I don't see why "feelers" would be necessary for the pullout... NWAC got its way, and that is that... Losing $$ on DEN-LAX no longer served any purpose. There doesn't need to be "feelers" to see that. F9 knows NWA is losing $$ on DEN-LAX.

I similarly expect that if Independence Air drops IAD-Lansing, NWAirlink will too. If AirTran drops Flint-Orlando, so will NW. This is typical of NW's behavior going back to its early 90's response to Reno Air's entry to the Reno-MSP market. (Reno Air announced 2 flights/day RNO-MSP, and NWA announced a new RNO mini-hub within a week... at the time, NWA did not even serve RNO...)

 

[funguy2]

Actually the conduct that got Crandall in trouble was his attempt to collude with Braniff on prices, not routes. Assuming, of course, that they did coordinate their decision, it should be noted that since neither F9 or NW are the only airlines serving the LAX/MSP market (however indirectly) their actions may appear to meet the Webster's definition, but do not meet the legal definition of collusion.

Umm... OK... Well, the last I heard, AA and BA do not have "anti-trust immunity". This means, even though they are alliance partners, they are not able to coordinate pricing, scheduling, and marketing. KLM and Northwest, on the otherhand, do have anti-trust immunity, and a relatively integrated tranatlantic system. Meanwhile, Aloha and Hawaiian Air were granted anti-trust immunity in order to protect intra-state Hawaii air service post-9/11. As part of this, they were allowed to discuss pricing, scheduling, and other things. The State of Hawaii wanted to make sure that they both didn't stop flying, so they let them discuss their competitive situation, such that both could survive.

Unless NW and F9 have anti-trust immunity, I don't think they are allowed to discuss who will serve what route. There are other precedents for this, as noted above.

Do you think UA and AA are allowed to discuss how many flights each operates out of ORD to each market?

UA to AA: Well, we want to fly 16 dailies to LGA, but in exchange, you can fly 14 dailies to BOS.

AA to UA: OK, we'll take BOS, and we also want LAX...

Of course this is not allowed. Neither is the purported discussion between NWAC and F9.