One Less Competitor On Los Angeles To Vegas
- Thread starter MiAAmi
- Start date
jimntx
Veteran
Well, let's see...MiAAmi said:
1. AA has 3 flights a day LAX-LAS. 2 S80s and 1 757.
2. If you want to go AE there are 3 flights also, but they require a change of planes in SJC!
3. According to Orbitz there are at least 6 airlines flying this route who beat AA's price and United matches the fare that AA charges. This is 6 airlines in addition to JetBlue because they don't sell tickets on Orbitz.
One less competitor; gee, I guess our financial troubles are over!
With two daily flights, which were there for no other reason than as placeholders, they were never a major player in the market. However, one less competitor in the Los Angeles-Vegas market, but it may mean one more competitor in the Boston-Las Vegas and South Florida-Las Vegas markets, because jetBlue may be adding daily redeye services on both routes come this summer.
Royal Ambassador
Advanced
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 142
- Reaction score
- 20
WN alone offers 15 weekday round trips between LAX and LAS, 12 between BUR and LAS, 10 between ONT and LAS and 3 between SNA and LAS. If my math skills are up to par that is a total of 50 round trips a day between Southern California (excluding SAN) and Las Vegas.
This should help put the JetBlue pullout from the LGB - LAS market in perspective.
This should help put the JetBlue pullout from the LGB - LAS market in perspective.
jimntx
Veteran
Wrong. I am not in the least bit bitter. I just fail to see any purpose to your original post. If United quit flying from DFW or ORD to DEN, it would be a MAJOR financial boost for us. But, LAX-LAS???? We're talking 3 friggin flights a day.MiAAmi said:
If anyone is negative, it would be you. You only seem to take pleasure in the misfortune of other airlines. The way to be better than someone else is not to tear that person/company down and to crow about their failures, it's to BE BETTER than they.
The truth is that the bad attitude of the currently working AA flight attendants is going to hurt us a lot more than the competition of other airlines. I've been doing a good bit of non-rev flying, and I am appalled at the actions and attitudes of some of the working f/a's. Airing our dirty linen to the customers is not going to win us any supporters. Most people have their own problems. They don't want to hear yours in detail and ad nauseum. And,. don't get your knickers in a twist, I didn't say you are doing it, but a lot of your co-workers ARE doing it.
I'm sorry that you think that I would take pleasure in anyones misfortunes because I don't. Could you point out the misfortune that I am supposedly taking pleasure in? Anything that provides AMR more revenue whether its B6 pulling its LGB to LAS flights or anything else is better for AA. At this point we will take what we can get. The fact that AA can get more money for their seats than the LLC's is good news no matter how you slice it.jimntx said:
jimntx
Veteran
That's just the point. We AIN'T gettin the revenue. If you go to the non-rev travel planner you can book yourself a flight from LAX to LAS almost any day of the week. All 3 flights are wide open. Try the same thing on DFW-LAS. Now, there's a market that we dominate.MiAAmi said:
And, again. If B6 leaving the market meant that we filled all 3 of those flights in the future, how much difference would it really make?
As someone else posted, I'm more afraid that what the announcement means is that B6 is re-deploying those a/c to other markets. Say LGB-DFW. That's a market they can hurt us in. A lot of people in the LA area are willing to drive to LGB to fly because it's much less hassle than LAX, and the terminal building is SOOO cute. lol
jimntx
Veteran
I did. I went to the non-rev travel planner and to AA.com and put in several different dates. Remember, I don't have direct access to Sabre. But then, AA saying a seat was available when it wasn't wouldn't be that big a surprise, now would it?MiAAmi said:
Load management, don't ya know.
LiveInAHotel
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 645
- Reaction score
- 0
First, they tried to compete against Delta LGB-ATL (Delta LAX-ATL) and pulled out. Then they tried to compete against Southwest, America West, American and Northwest LGB-LAS (Southwest LAX-LAS, SNA-LAS, BUR-LAS and ONT-LAS, America West LAX-LAS, SNA-LAS and ONT-LAS, American LAX-LAS and Northwest LAX-LAS) and pulled out. It looks like JetBlue can't take the heat so once again they're getting out of the kitchen! Can't wait until they try to fly into ORD!! 🙄
jimntx
Veteran
Well, even with all those "failures", in 2003 JetBlue had the highest increase in revenue passenger miles, available seat miles and number of passengers boarded of any mainline airline. (I use the term mainline as a way of including majors and LCCs in a category that excludes the regionals.) Which means they are growing.LiveInAHotel said:
American had the highest total numbers in all those categories (as one would expect from the world's largest airline), but if you look at 2003 vs. 2002 instead of an increase in each of those categories, we showed a decrease. Not as great a decrease as some, but a decrease nevertheless. What does that mean to you?
And, saying that they failed on LGB-LAS or LGB-ATL is really sort of meaningless, because the LA to to Las Vegas route is heavily served and only marginally profitable to anybody who flies it. And, I doubt seriously that LGB-ATL is a major moneymaker for Delta either.
Be careful what you wish for. A lot of people in cities like Dallas or Houston or Denver resent the fact that a single airline dominates the local market. Cities like that are ripe for incursion by JetBlue. It charges like an LCC, but people perceive the product--leather seats, individual TV screens--as competing with the AA, DL, UA type product. I'm not saying that they will succeed wildly in ORD, but I don't think it will be a cakewalk for AA and UA either.
Similar threads
