New LAX/LAS service
- Thread starter Cart Pusher
- Start date
Well congrats to Airtran! Lets hope they will be serving these routes with their own A320's in the near future.
What's the story on additional gate space at ATL. When I was there in Dec they were packed in. I would imagine some additional gate space may be needed for the ATL service additions.
What's the story on additional gate space at ATL. When I was there in Dec they were packed in. I would imagine some additional gate space may be needed for the ATL service additions.
I find it interesting that they will offer these routes without their own aircraft. Could the arrival of jetBlue in ATL have pushed AirTran to add this service before actually planned?
Wow. This is a very interesting development. Adding LAX and LAS has the potential to be a defining AirTran moment. I would have to think this is temporary while they acquire their own equipment.
This development really sets the stage for the low-fare carriers... Southwest is nationwide... America West covers the west, with some access to the east, and now AirTran will cover the east with some access to the West. This is big trouble for the incumbant carriers.
This development really sets the stage for the low-fare carriers... Southwest is nationwide... America West covers the west, with some access to the east, and now AirTran will cover the east with some access to the West. This is big trouble for the incumbant carriers.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/4/2003 11:33:17 AM weatherman wrote:
I find it interesting that they will offer these routes without their own aircraft. Could the arrival of jetBlue in ATL have pushed AirTran to add this service before actually planned?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Rumor was that FL was in talks with Miami Air to operate to these cities before the announcement of ATL-LGB service from JetBlue. So I'd say it's 50/50 on whether JetBlue's arrival really forced them to jump.
Rumor also has it that FL will be taking another 3 or 4 gates on D concourse in ATL. With all the gates they've crammed into C, they'll need some bigger gates anyway to take those 320's.
----------------
On 3/4/2003 11:33:17 AM weatherman wrote:
I find it interesting that they will offer these routes without their own aircraft. Could the arrival of jetBlue in ATL have pushed AirTran to add this service before actually planned?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Rumor was that FL was in talks with Miami Air to operate to these cities before the announcement of ATL-LGB service from JetBlue. So I'd say it's 50/50 on whether JetBlue's arrival really forced them to jump.
Rumor also has it that FL will be taking another 3 or 4 gates on D concourse in ATL. With all the gates they've crammed into C, they'll need some bigger gates anyway to take those 320's.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/4/2003 11:33:17 AM weatherman wrote:
Could the arrival of jetBlue in ATL have pushed AirTran to add this service before actually planned?
----------------
[/blockquote]
No. Don't confuse AirTran's reasoning with the thinking of the cartel airlines. Whereas the cartel airlines are mainly reactionary in announcing new services (as well as everything else they do), airlines with a viable plan (FL among them) launch new services because a market with profit potential exists for the product they offer.
And, as 7.5 notes, FL did not suddenly discover an urgent need to serve LAX that "just happened" to come to mind immediately following jetBlue's announcement of LGB-ATL in a "bizarre coincidence in timing."
----------------
On 3/4/2003 11:33:17 AM weatherman wrote:
Could the arrival of jetBlue in ATL have pushed AirTran to add this service before actually planned?
----------------
[/blockquote]
No. Don't confuse AirTran's reasoning with the thinking of the cartel airlines. Whereas the cartel airlines are mainly reactionary in announcing new services (as well as everything else they do), airlines with a viable plan (FL among them) launch new services because a market with profit potential exists for the product they offer.
And, as 7.5 notes, FL did not suddenly discover an urgent need to serve LAX that "just happened" to come to mind immediately following jetBlue's announcement of LGB-ATL in a "bizarre coincidence in timing."
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/4/2003 2
18 PM Tango-Bravo wrote:
No. Don't confuse AirTran's reasoning with the thinking of the cartel airlines. Whereas the cartel airlines are mainly reactionary in announcing new services (as well as everything else they do), airlines with a viable plan (FL among them) launch new services because a market with profit potential exists for the product they offer.
And, as 7.5 notes, FL did not suddenly discover an urgent need to serve LAX that "just happened" to come to mind immediately following jetBlue's announcement of LGB-ATL in a "bizarre coincidence in timing."
----------------
[/blockquote]
Time to sound the ol' BS meter. Sorry, but even the "cartel" airlines don't plan most of their routes around where the low-fare carriers are. I can name many new routes in the last year alone that DL has announced that have nothing to do with low-fare carriers.
Trust me, this move is in part a reaction to JBLU. FL hadn't intended to launch these routes this soon. If FL wasn't in a hurry, why not wait until next year when FL will actually have its own planes to fly the route? Why contract out to a third party? How often does WN contract planes from 3rd parties?
----------------
On 3/4/2003 2
18 PM Tango-Bravo wrote: No. Don't confuse AirTran's reasoning with the thinking of the cartel airlines. Whereas the cartel airlines are mainly reactionary in announcing new services (as well as everything else they do), airlines with a viable plan (FL among them) launch new services because a market with profit potential exists for the product they offer.
And, as 7.5 notes, FL did not suddenly discover an urgent need to serve LAX that "just happened" to come to mind immediately following jetBlue's announcement of LGB-ATL in a "bizarre coincidence in timing."
----------------
[/blockquote]
Time to sound the ol' BS meter. Sorry, but even the "cartel" airlines don't plan most of their routes around where the low-fare carriers are. I can name many new routes in the last year alone that DL has announced that have nothing to do with low-fare carriers.
Trust me, this move is in part a reaction to JBLU. FL hadn't intended to launch these routes this soon. If FL wasn't in a hurry, why not wait until next year when FL will actually have its own planes to fly the route? Why contract out to a third party? How often does WN contract planes from 3rd parties?
Wondering, do you AirTran pilots have any scope that keeps your management from farming out flying to Ryan, etc.? Or, are you guys ok with this?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/4/2003 6
26 PM DLFlyer31 wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/4/2003 218 PM Tango-Bravo wrote:
No. Don't confuse AirTran's reasoning with the thinking of the cartel airlines. Whereas the cartel airlines are mainly reactionary in announcing new services (as well as everything else they do), airlines with a viable plan (FL among them) launch new services because a market with profit potential exists for the product they offer.
And, as 7.5 notes, FL did not suddenly discover an urgent need to serve LAX that "just happened" to come to mind immediately following jetBlue's announcement of LGB-ATL in a "bizarre coincidence in timing."
----------------
[/blockquote]
Time to sound the ol' BS meter. Sorry, but even the "cartel" airlines don't plan most of their routes around where the low-fare carriers are. I can name many new routes in the last year alone that DL has announced that have nothing to do with low-fare carriers.
Trust me, this move is in part a reaction to JBLU. FL hadn't intended to launch these routes this soon. If FL wasn't in a hurry, why not wait until next year when FL will actually have its own planes to fly the route? Why contract out to a third party? How often does WN contract planes from 3rd parties?
----------------
[/blockquote]
...so then it was sheer coincidence in timing that DL "just happened" to discover an urgent need, among other examples, to fly ATL-CAK with M80s in place of CRJs and ramp up ATL-GPT service within days -- if not hours -- of FL's announcements of these routes?????
And by a similar "bizarre coincidence" AA "just happened" to discover the opportunites they had been overlooking for years at LGB and MDW at exactly the same time as announcements of expanded service by jetBlue and ATA at these points of previous non-interest to AA?????
Let me try to sort this out... The fares offered by (profitable) LCCs are causing the cartel airlines to be unprofitable on routes where they compete. So the "answer" for the cartel airlines -- who say they are trying to return to profitibility -- is to start or increase service at cities where they had been unsuccessful without LCC competition after a LCC enters one of the same markets or increases its presence in same?????
Sounds like classic cartel airline "reasoning" to me. The same type of "reasoning" which led UA to feel they were entitled to ATSB loan guarantees -- after all, they had a plan to reduce their losses from over $2 billion/yr to a "mere" $1 billion/yr.
----------------
On 3/4/2003 6
26 PM DLFlyer31 wrote: [blockquote]
----------------
On 3/4/2003 2
18 PM Tango-Bravo wrote: No. Don't confuse AirTran's reasoning with the thinking of the cartel airlines. Whereas the cartel airlines are mainly reactionary in announcing new services (as well as everything else they do), airlines with a viable plan (FL among them) launch new services because a market with profit potential exists for the product they offer.
And, as 7.5 notes, FL did not suddenly discover an urgent need to serve LAX that "just happened" to come to mind immediately following jetBlue's announcement of LGB-ATL in a "bizarre coincidence in timing."
----------------
[/blockquote]
Time to sound the ol' BS meter. Sorry, but even the "cartel" airlines don't plan most of their routes around where the low-fare carriers are. I can name many new routes in the last year alone that DL has announced that have nothing to do with low-fare carriers.
Trust me, this move is in part a reaction to JBLU. FL hadn't intended to launch these routes this soon. If FL wasn't in a hurry, why not wait until next year when FL will actually have its own planes to fly the route? Why contract out to a third party? How often does WN contract planes from 3rd parties?
----------------
[/blockquote]
...so then it was sheer coincidence in timing that DL "just happened" to discover an urgent need, among other examples, to fly ATL-CAK with M80s in place of CRJs and ramp up ATL-GPT service within days -- if not hours -- of FL's announcements of these routes?????
And by a similar "bizarre coincidence" AA "just happened" to discover the opportunites they had been overlooking for years at LGB and MDW at exactly the same time as announcements of expanded service by jetBlue and ATA at these points of previous non-interest to AA?????
Let me try to sort this out... The fares offered by (profitable) LCCs are causing the cartel airlines to be unprofitable on routes where they compete. So the "answer" for the cartel airlines -- who say they are trying to return to profitibility -- is to start or increase service at cities where they had been unsuccessful without LCC competition after a LCC enters one of the same markets or increases its presence in same?????
Sounds like classic cartel airline "reasoning" to me. The same type of "reasoning" which led UA to feel they were entitled to ATSB loan guarantees -- after all, they had a plan to reduce their losses from over $2 billion/yr to a "mere" $1 billion/yr.
DLflyer31 -
I can just as easily cite cases where DL has reacted and attempt (unsuccessfully) to attack FL. For example the relaxing of rules in markets that just happened to be served by FL, or the entry of DL in the ATL-CAK market, which was ignored for years despite the airports growth. But the 2 MD88 flights didn't last and are now served w/ RJ's.
FL had publically stated that the ATL-LAX market was the largest (in terms of pax carried) in the USA without any competition (ie nonstop vs. nonstop). It was ripe for FL to enter.
I can just as easily cite cases where DL has reacted and attempt (unsuccessfully) to attack FL. For example the relaxing of rules in markets that just happened to be served by FL, or the entry of DL in the ATL-CAK market, which was ignored for years despite the airports growth. But the 2 MD88 flights didn't last and are now served w/ RJ's.
FL had publically stated that the ATL-LAX market was the largest (in terms of pax carried) in the USA without any competition (ie nonstop vs. nonstop). It was ripe for FL to enter.
KCFlyer
Veteran
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/4/2003 626 PM DLFlyer31 wrote:
I can name many new routes in the last year alone that DL has announced that have nothing to do with low-fare carriers.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I can think of one they did - MCI-DFW...right after Vanguard folded.
----------------
On 3/4/2003 6
26 PM DLFlyer31 wrote: I can name many new routes in the last year alone that DL has announced that have nothing to do with low-fare carriers.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I can think of one they did - MCI-DFW...right after Vanguard folded.
I think the point was that...everyone does it. However, the "cartel" as Mini-Jim is calling them...don't ALWAYS do it as he portrayed. Yes AirTran does...and yes Delta does it. DLFlyer was simply stating that there are examples out there to support that Delta doesn't do it ALL the time...but they do do it from time to time - same for AirTran.
I love the way these flights will have 12 business class seats and 150 economy seats, while jetBlue simply has 162 coach seats...
I think this has less to do with responding to JetBlue ATL-LGB specifically, and more to do the position of AirTran in the future... Consider this: America West converts to the low-fare model. AirTran instantly gets bumped from low-fare carrier #2 to #3 in terms of size. AWA brings with it a large western regional system, and a decent amount of transcon traffic. Southwest also has significant transcon operations from BWI, PHX, LAS, and MDW. Add to that the increasing transcon pressure from smaller LCC's (Frontier invaded DEN-Florida, Spirit added DEN, LAS and LAX service, and of course JetBlue's transcons) and pretty soon AirTran gets edged out of the low-fare transcon market unless they make a move soon.
I think AirTran wants to be more like America West... a strong regional player (like AWA in the west, AirTran is becoming in the east) with a decent transcon presence to keep passengers from switching airlines when they need to go transcon. I think AirTran was previously content to wait for the B717-300 and continue its work in the east and midwest. But a number of current events, which includes LGB-ATL and much more, hastened their decision to go trancon.
I think there is enough room for the LCCs in the transcon market... But the 'legacy' carriers should watch out... Is Delta's new DFW RJ hub really going to compete with the LCC's (under their new arrangement you can fly DCA to PHX or ORD to TUS over DFW on all RJ's, and RJ's are much more expensive on an ASM basis)?
I think this is a good move by AirTran under one condition... They order some longer range aircraft and take over this flying quickly. Boeing and Airbus must have some appropriate aircraft available for quick delivery.
This arrangement with Ryan Int'l has a second benefit that most here are overlooking... This is the least risky way for AirTran to test out service to the west coast. If the service fails, they did not add the new fleet type, specifically to get to the west coast, only to have it fail (part of the problem with Midway of RDU, they seemed to do this twice, once with A320's and once with B737-700's). If it fails, AirTran cancels the contract with Ryan, and its done. If it works, AirTran acquires some longer range aircraft, and takes on its own flying, and gets rid of Ryan Int'l. AirTran can use this arrangement with Ryan to determine what kind of revenue possibilities the longer range aircraft afford before actually acquring the aircraft. I'll bet alot of airlines wish they could do something like this in order to minimize the risk of a big change.
I think AirTran wants to be more like America West... a strong regional player (like AWA in the west, AirTran is becoming in the east) with a decent transcon presence to keep passengers from switching airlines when they need to go transcon. I think AirTran was previously content to wait for the B717-300 and continue its work in the east and midwest. But a number of current events, which includes LGB-ATL and much more, hastened their decision to go trancon.
I think there is enough room for the LCCs in the transcon market... But the 'legacy' carriers should watch out... Is Delta's new DFW RJ hub really going to compete with the LCC's (under their new arrangement you can fly DCA to PHX or ORD to TUS over DFW on all RJ's, and RJ's are much more expensive on an ASM basis)?
I think this is a good move by AirTran under one condition... They order some longer range aircraft and take over this flying quickly. Boeing and Airbus must have some appropriate aircraft available for quick delivery.
This arrangement with Ryan Int'l has a second benefit that most here are overlooking... This is the least risky way for AirTran to test out service to the west coast. If the service fails, they did not add the new fleet type, specifically to get to the west coast, only to have it fail (part of the problem with Midway of RDU, they seemed to do this twice, once with A320's and once with B737-700's). If it fails, AirTran cancels the contract with Ryan, and its done. If it works, AirTran acquires some longer range aircraft, and takes on its own flying, and gets rid of Ryan Int'l. AirTran can use this arrangement with Ryan to determine what kind of revenue possibilities the longer range aircraft afford before actually acquring the aircraft. I'll bet alot of airlines wish they could do something like this in order to minimize the risk of a big change.
Does anyone know if Ryan International will paint their aircraft in AirTran colors? If this is a short term agreement I don't think that would be feasable unless AirTran pays for the cost.
Similar threads
