[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/18/2003 4:31:31 PM mga707 wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/18/2003 4:03:15 PM ITRADE wrote:
LGB-SAN might be possible if the SAN-LGB leg is a tag to a transcon flight.
SAN-LGB itself is about 110 miles and will have basically NO o/d traffic. Its too close and folks would rather drive or take Amtrak.
Anyway, SAN - LA has gobs of service courtesy of Eagle and UA Express. Those flights are basically all feed for the LAX originators.
Finally, a short hop like that in a A320 would burn a lot of fuel and be rather expensive.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Agree on the lack of o/d traffic, but wonder what happened to it and why.
20 years ago PSA ran 7 r/t SAN-LAX flights per day. 25 years ago they had an amazing 14 r/t flights!
Plus, you had Imperial running Bandits every 30 or 60 minutes--which I guess would equate to the UA Ex/AA Eagle flights of today.
But still, how come PSA could run so many 727s/MD80s on this route (and 727s certainly were more expensive to operate than A320s). the average driving time has certainly not gotten any less. Is there train service now that wasn't around back then?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Perhaps the old flights were not necessarily O/D traffic flights, but were, istead, flights done simply because the old systems of economics yield management were not as important back then.
You'd run your SAN-LAX flight as the originator to a flight running to FAT or MRY.
Amtrak was around back then, but was not as prevelant. I think Amtrak was running 6 or so trains a day.
While driving time has not decreased much (it probably has increased owing to traffic on the 405), the time required to transit via airplane has certainly increased owing to the security precautions that have been put into place.