Is SNA going away??

[a320av8r]

Can you say UA*?

Two flights per day, even full, won't pay for 24 agents, gates, ground equipment, etc...
And no new slots to add flights.

 

[geo1004]

----------------
On 6/18/2003 9:51:22 AM a320av8r wrote:

Can you say UA*?

Two flights per day, even full, won''t pay for 24 agents, gates, ground equipment, etc...
And no new slots to add flights.

----------------​

Correct. Two flights a day even charging higher fares than the competition is not going to cut it. It''s economy of scale in this case. IF US could have grabbed a few more slots, SNA might be profitable.

One can only hope they will add another west-coast city soon????

 

[gilbertguy]

BUR, LGB, ONT, more LAX....where you gonna go? You can write off SoCAL. for US....

 

[gilbertguy]

----------------
On 6/18/2003 12:09:44 PM Cosmo wrote:

----------------
On 6/18/2003 1106 AM gilbertguy wrote:

BUR, LGB, ONT, more LAX....where you gonna go? You can write off SoCAL. for US....
----------------​

In addition, if the economy-of-scale rationale is the legitimate reason for the closure of SNA, then I don''t think this action bodes well for any US expansion to other western cities (like PDX, YVR, SJC, SLC, COS or ABQ, to mention a few that have been discussed on this board) in the near future. Which, if any, of those cities would start with a total of more than two daily flights from US'' hubs?

Furthermore, to overcome the economy-of-scale argument, why doesn''t US simply have UA handle the flights to SNA from PHL and PIT? UA currently operates 16 daily departures from SNA (6xSFO, 6xDEN and 4xORD, according to the June 2003 OAG), and UA could probably handle two more flights each day with its current number of gates. And while this would hit US'' ground staff in SNA pretty hard, at least it would maintain US'' presence at the airport and the carrier''s flights to its PHL and PIT hubs, with domestic and international connections beyond the two hubs.

And lastly, with regard to Art at ISP''s contention that this might be part of a plan to give the current US routes to UA, IMHO I think that is really doubtful. If UA were indeed to replace US'' flights out of SNA, I believe that UA would instead start SNA-IAD flights to connect to its own hub. UA actually announced the beginning of SNA-IAD flights during the summer of 2001, for an October 2001 start, but the flights were never begun after the post-9/11 traffic decline.

SEA,PHX,LAS beware.....UA has a bigger presence in your backyard too....

 

[ONTHESTREET]

It is quite simple, Dave said we would be a regional airline. Can't be a regional with long hauls. Looks like a slow pull down of all mainline cities with the removal of aircraft from service until none but the RJ exists anymore.

Just an opinion.

Do not know about others, current job is much better than flying RJ's for 30k. I will not accept recall to MDA or a J4J. I have had enough of these idiots. I did not spend all that time training and years gaining experience just to be passed off to the lowest bidder. Let them find a bunch of 500 hour graduates to drive the RJ's around. Considering the time that insurance carriers are now requiring for the corporate stuff RJ's will be the only place that an unexperienced kid will be able to fly. From what I have seen in the last few months the way for an experienced airline pilot to go is Corporate. If you have the time you can just about name your price.....they cannot afford to pay insurance on a turbo prop or jet unless the guy in the left seat has 6000+ hours.

 

[Cosmo]

----------------
On 6/18/2003 1106 AM gilbertguy wrote:

BUR, LGB, ONT, more LAX....where you gonna go? You can write off SoCAL. for US....
----------------​

In addition, if the economy-of-scale rationale is the legitimate reason for the closure of SNA, then I don''t think this action bodes well for any US expansion to other western cities (like PDX, YVR, SJC, SLC, COS or ABQ, to mention a few that have been discussed on this board) in the near future. Which, if any, of those cities would start with a total of more than two daily flights from US'' hubs?

Furthermore, to overcome the economy-of-scale argument, why doesn''t US simply have UA handle the flights to SNA from PHL and PIT? UA currently operates 16 daily departures from SNA (6xSFO, 6xDEN and 4xORD, according to the June 2003 OAG), and UA could probably handle two more flights each day with its current number of gates. And while this would hit US'' ground staff in SNA pretty hard, at least it would maintain US'' presence at the airport and the carrier''s flights to its PHL and PIT hubs, with domestic and international connections beyond the two hubs.

And lastly, with regard to Art at ISP''s contention that this might be part of a plan to give the current US routes to UA, IMHO I think that is really doubtful. If UA were indeed to replace US'' flights out of SNA, I believe that UA would instead start SNA-IAD flights to connect to its own hub. UA actually announced the beginning of SNA-IAD flights during the summer of 2001, for an October 2001 start, but the flights were never begun after the post-9/11 traffic decline.

 

[Non Rever]

----------------
On 6/17/2003 10:22:40 PM Chip Munn wrote:

The current schedule includes two daily nonstop flights from Philadelphia, operated with A319 aircraft.

Which was just switched from PIT 2X daily to 1 PIT, 1 PHL.
Never gave it a chance to work. SNA as had 2 flts daily for years to PIT. For a time they were 757''s!!!


our yield was low, which translated to unprofitability,

Where was Marketing and sales? Did anyone try to do anything to improve the yield?


Although Orange County tends to have a ***higher mix of business traffic than most*** California airports, we were unable to capture enough higher yielding passengers.

Is this the writing on the wall? Are we going to pull out of LAX, SAN, SEA, SFO?


Slot constraints at the Orange County airport also would have restricted US Airways’ significant schedule growth in the market for the future.


Front page of USA Today Money section. AA adding flts. Does a breakdown of cities, Guess where AA is growing? SNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------------​

 

[rvolkcpa]

Furthermore, to overcome the economy-of-scale argument, why doesn''t US simply have UA handle the flights to SNA from PHL and PIT? UA currently operates 16 daily departures from SNA (6xSFO, 6xDEN and 4xORD, according to the June 2003 OAG), and UA could probably handle two more flights each day with its current number of gates. And while this would hit US'' ground staff in SNA pretty hard, at least it would maintain US'' presence at the airport and the carrier''s flights to its PHL and PIT hubs, with domestic and international connections beyond the two hubs.




----------------
When we flew out of SNA several years ago, no carrier had specific gates. I believe the entire terminal only has 8 gates, and these are shared by all airlines.

I agree that it would have been better to keep the flights and have United do the ground staffing than to no longer have the flights. Is this permitted under code share and union contract rules?

 

[sfb]

It seems to me that having 24 (topped-out) employees at SNA to serve 2 round-trips with 120-seat aircraft was probably one of the biggest problems. Consider that US was offering 3360 seats (both inbound and outbound) weekly and was paying for 960 hours of work (24 employees times 40 hours, assuming full-time employment) -- so each employee was handling, on average, 3.5 passengers per hour if all seats were filled, or 2.8 passengers per hour at an 80% load factor -- and that''s only the ground staff. I cannot imagine US'' unions allowing the company to outsource ground support west of the Mississippi to United -- though it would certainly make sense, especially if United outsourced some of its ground support in the East to US (PBI and its single daily United flight is a clear opportunity).

US Airways dropping ACY isn''t surprising at all when you consider how Spirit has driven down fares there. And not that I subscribe to conspiracy theories at all, but I do wonder if PineyBob was a factor in their decision! After all, you have to consider that, though Piney has been a fantastic supporter of the airline and its employees, he''s also been critical (in the media) of its management. Do you think that dropping ACY is their attempt to rid the airline of the King Cockroach? Or am I just being completely silly?

I realize that US Airways has limited resources, and they cannot afford to continue serving the same size of network they have had in the past. But given that US Airways'' network breadth on the East Coast has long been touted as one of its primary strengths, and given that the low-fare carriers will continue their invasion of US'' primary market area, I can''t see how US will compete in the long term.

 

[deelmakur]

Meantime, a few miles down the road, JetBlue is piling on the flights at LGB,as they begin to develop a linear north/south presence on the West Coast. By extension, it will give them the additional utilization to permit transcon operations eastbound, at times other than the "redeye zone". One day these guys will figure out you can''t size your operations to your costs. Cutbacks and service inconsistencies of any kind simply erode the brand. High yield business traffic is probably under 10 percent now. This will really help

 

[Bear96]

----------------
On 6/16/2003 9:52:30 PM USFlyer wrote:

Expect to see further small towns lose service.
----------------​

"Small town?" The LA metro area? I guess EWR is a "small town" too?

 

[USFlyer]

----------------
On 6/18/2003 7:13:48 PM Bear96 wrote:

----------------
On 6/16/2003 9:52:30 PM USFlyer wrote:

Expect to see further small towns lose service.
----------------​

"Small town?" The LA metro area? I guess EWR is a "small town" too?

----------------​

I didn''t say this in reference to SNA. I said this in reference to Naples, Atlantic City, Reading, Lancaster, etc.

 

[gilbertguy]

----------------
On 6/17/2003 3:40:36 PM USFlyer wrote:

This is confirmed -- SNA is being dropped due to low yields (yet high loads). The route was NOT profitable.

Low yields....SNA is one of the ''richest'' counties in the nation, go figure. We gave CA. to SWA/UA years ago with the merger (dismantling) of PSA...and now we''ve come back to twist the knife....

 

[Pacemaker]

US Airways will go right on selling tickets to SNA, they''ll just be flown by United crews on United flights out of places like ORD. I think any place west of MCI is vulnerable - they can get rid of all the costs of running a mainline station but still pull in some revenue via the code share.

 

[libertybell]

This is just on more sign that forces our bussiness traffic to the door of some other airline.

Way to go Dave!