HMMMM with Senator Spector going hog wild with the PIT issues and he stating he flew WN and he liked it and he got his bag... yeah right like he even checked in a bag .. where is WN coming to the rescue of PIT after they already announced additonal service from other cities and where is FL and B6 with their major plans for PIT. WN has already announced advanced services for Feb and Mar.. hmm where is PIT ... FL just dropped Bos-Phl service and DL picked it up with 50 crjs 4x a day after AA had already tried that route before FL came in with 125 seat 717s... like when will it end this .. its always goes back to Economics the same class we all took in high school. the times are a changing right now the economy is going downhill not surprising when it comes to a Republican leaving a year before he/she leaves the fuel is at 100 per barrell... WN is now paying the price and there are contracts up for renewral.. yes things are a changing . like Bette Davis said.. Fasten your seat belts its going to be a BUMPY RIDE.. never a dull moment . No one is exempt from what will happen economically its a different playing field for everyone .. let the games begin
where is the big WN/FL/B6 expansion in PIT
- Thread starter avion
- Start date
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Relax.
vantheman63
Senior
Easy there...go easy...
There's almost ZERO evidence "the economy is going downhill." Maybe a "soft landing" or a short recession, but "downhill" isn't right. There are too many good things going on in the world right now.
Remember, the national/mainstream media are a bunch of negative nay-sayers....(Frankly, I'd tell you what I really feel, but I already piss enough people off on here.)
Just today, I had CNN on, for the first time in, maybe 5 years....flipped it on because there was some "real estate/economy" special on. They had a Harvard Professor and a Yale Professor as their "expert analysts" on. Both gentlement said, "this downward spiral in the real estate market will continue for years to come."
Anyone that believes that needs to really study and examine the facts....the average down turn over the last 100 years, in real estate cycles is exactly 32 months. And these "beacons of higher education" are clearly clueless.....and can't be fired, even though they should be for being stupid.
The economy is fine. This is all a pattern of change.
A lot of people confuse stock prices with the economy.
vantheman63
Senior
A lot of people confuse what they hear on the TV and read in USA Today with fact and what's really happening.
Prince of PAWOBs
Veteran
OP is all over the place. Looks like bait to me.
N965VJ
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
- Reaction score
- 149
One yardstick of the economy's strength is employment.
Pick any of these charts and choose the graph option after you open it.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
There are few that will show our economy is hurting. When we start seeing big downward trends like we did in the 2001-2003 timeframe, then we can start crying "downturn". Oh, but I'm sure the GOP bashers will say that the employment gains are not valuable ones. Yet, when jobs were created in the previous administration (1990's), every liberal pundit was all over what a great job he was doing.
And all this real estate hype is giving me headaches. Is it harder to sell a house now? Sure. Are people selling at a huge loss(or even a loss at all) from what they paid? Not very often. Well, maybe except for the idiots who bit off more than they could chew and took ARMs and interest only loans that they KNEW would bring on higher obligations in a few years. Now they're all defaulting and screwing the rest of us who somehow knew better.
Now I could play the politics card and say this is all because of a republican administration since the OP said this "downturn" is somehow the current administration's fault, but I won't.
Pick any of these charts and choose the graph option after you open it.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
There are few that will show our economy is hurting. When we start seeing big downward trends like we did in the 2001-2003 timeframe, then we can start crying "downturn". Oh, but I'm sure the GOP bashers will say that the employment gains are not valuable ones. Yet, when jobs were created in the previous administration (1990's), every liberal pundit was all over what a great job he was doing.
And all this real estate hype is giving me headaches. Is it harder to sell a house now? Sure. Are people selling at a huge loss(or even a loss at all) from what they paid? Not very often. Well, maybe except for the idiots who bit off more than they could chew and took ARMs and interest only loans that they KNEW would bring on higher obligations in a few years. Now they're all defaulting and screwing the rest of us who somehow knew better.
Now I could play the politics card and say this is all because of a republican administration since the OP said this "downturn" is somehow the current administration's fault, but I won't.
Arnold Ziffel
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
PIT has the second highest cost per enplaned passenger in the country. The first is Denver.
The genius leadership of Allegheny county is raising costs on existing tenants and increasing fees to the vendors inside the terminal by almost 30%.
The current cost per enplaned passenger is now north of $13. It is almost $15 in Denver but that airport has no near by airport competition. PIT has CLE, CMH, CVG right near by and they are all hubs. Well, CMH is not yet a hub, but Skybus is really lowering the yield picture, at least for the time being.
WN operates to all of these airports and the respective costs of these airports is much lower in some cases, up to 75% lower.
For any lcc carrier the problem is that at $13 bucks a head a full 124 seat 737 load in PIT will be $1612 in airport related fees. If it is 75% less in CLE that cost is $403, a difference of $1209. No one can make up yield like that.
If the cost is only half of what it costs in PIT a full airplane still would cost $806 more a load. It doesn't make economic sense to go into a secondary market big-time with costs like that. You end up competing with yourself out of other airports because you can charge less there and still make a profit.
The PIT politicos will figure this out eventually, but only after the damage to a first class facility is done. It will happen only after a crisis where the state has to step in and guarantee the bond issue, which by the way is only one step above default. It is already low grade junk.
This is really too bad to see this happen to what JD power rated as the second best airport facility in the World. All the airlines have taken their hits it's time for airports like PIT to do the same and operate in the realities of the new economics of the industry instead of bing a County jobs program for politicians and their cronies.
The genius leadership of Allegheny county is raising costs on existing tenants and increasing fees to the vendors inside the terminal by almost 30%.
The current cost per enplaned passenger is now north of $13. It is almost $15 in Denver but that airport has no near by airport competition. PIT has CLE, CMH, CVG right near by and they are all hubs. Well, CMH is not yet a hub, but Skybus is really lowering the yield picture, at least for the time being.
WN operates to all of these airports and the respective costs of these airports is much lower in some cases, up to 75% lower.
For any lcc carrier the problem is that at $13 bucks a head a full 124 seat 737 load in PIT will be $1612 in airport related fees. If it is 75% less in CLE that cost is $403, a difference of $1209. No one can make up yield like that.
If the cost is only half of what it costs in PIT a full airplane still would cost $806 more a load. It doesn't make economic sense to go into a secondary market big-time with costs like that. You end up competing with yourself out of other airports because you can charge less there and still make a profit.
The PIT politicos will figure this out eventually, but only after the damage to a first class facility is done. It will happen only after a crisis where the state has to step in and guarantee the bond issue, which by the way is only one step above default. It is already low grade junk.
This is really too bad to see this happen to what JD power rated as the second best airport facility in the World. All the airlines have taken their hits it's time for airports like PIT to do the same and operate in the realities of the new economics of the industry instead of bing a County jobs program for politicians and their cronies.
N965VJ
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
- Reaction score
- 149
And CO is expanding in CLE, including an INTL Crew Base.
Prince of PAWOBs
Veteran
Did you know that 47.4% of all statistics are made up "on the spot"?
Unless you meant no one could recover from a yield difference like the one you illustrate.
Maybe you would be so kind as to lend us readers a statistical citation so we might judge for ourselves. 🙄
Arnold Ziffel
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
Today, CMH has fewer passengers and landed weight than we did five years ago, yet our airline costs are 15% lower!
Cost Per Enplaned Passenger at CMH 2005 – 1998
2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998
$4.99 $5.67 $6.64 $5.46 $5.18 $5.58 $5.03 $5.11
Total airline costs and airline cost per enplaned passenger. ... The cost per enplaned passenger for airlines serving Tampa was $3.93 for our fiscal year ...
www.pbsj.com/Press/Highlights/Winter2006/04.asp - 28k - Cached - Similar pages
Fitch: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl Airport Unaffected by Delta's Schedule Cuts
Business Wire, Sept 9, 2005
As the airport operates under a residual use and lease agreement, airline revenues should remain stable despite the expected decline in enplanements. However, with Delta reducing its level of activity, airport expenses will now be spread over a smaller base with other carriers likely to see increased costs. The airport boasts a low cost operating environment, with a cost per enplaned passenger of $3.52 in 2004, compared to Fitch's 2003 median of $6.07. The airport had $360 million of bonds outstanding, equaling a modest $32.53 per enplaned passenger.
How Much Do Airport Costs Matter?
Robert A. Hazel
I. Introduction
For decades, airline and airport managers have debated the importance of maintaining low airport charges, which are typically paid by the airlines in the form of airport terminal rents and landing fees (henceforth referred to as “airport costsâ€). Airline managers have argued that, in a low margin business, any significant increase in airport costs must inevitably be passed along to consumers in the form of higher airfares. They have also said that they are less likely to initiate or expand service at airports with high costs. Airport managers have argued that airport costs passed along to airlines make up only 5 to 6 percent of total airline operating costs and therefore are never the reason for high airfares, nor are they a deciding factor in airline route planning.
Second, the actions taken by the Pittsburgh Airport to reduce costs (and to correct misinformation concerning the level of future costs) alleviated some of the concernregarding the actual level of airport costs that would result from US Airways’ cutbacks or liquidation. Although industry analysts had speculated that Pittsburgh airport costs might rise to as much as $25 per departing passenger in the wake of US Airways’ cutbacks, the airport maintained that its success in tapping additional financing sources and reducing its own operating costs would limit airport costs to the $12 range per departing passenger following such cut-backs—a level found at some other airports. Nevertheless, the Pittsburgh experience has served to focus greater attention on the overall importance of airport costs, a subject that is explored further below.
I apologize, Cincinatti is only 70.67% cheaper than PIT that's 3. 52 / 12 x 100 = 29.33 and 100-29.33 = 70.67%
CMH is 4.99 ( 2005) / 12 = .4153 (1-.41583 = .5847) or 58.47%
These are not made up statistics. I can't find current 2007 numbers without going to Fitch ratings and you have to pay for that info.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Arnold,
You make one basic error - equating an airport's "per passenger fees" to an airlines cost per passenger to operate there.
The first - an airport's cost per enplaned passenger - is the total paid by all airlines at that airport divided by the total enplaned passengers at that airport. Thus, this is the average cost per enplaned passenger for all airlines
The second - an airline's cost per enplaned passenger at an airport - is the total paid by that one airline at that airport divided by the passengers enplaned by that airline at that airport.
A hypothetical example - an airport which enplanes a total of 300,000 passengers with a cost per enplaned passenger of $12 served by only two airlines - $3.6 million paid by the two airlines combined.
- Airline A uses 16 of 20 available gates, and likewise 80% of ticket counter/ramp/baggage/etc space. It enplanes 200,000 passengers. It therefore pays 80% of that $3.6 million, or $2.88 million. Airline A has a cost per enplaned passenger of $14.40
- Airline B has an efficient operation, enplaning the other 100,000 passengers through the 20% of facilities it pays for. Paying only 20% of that $3.6 million, it's total bill is $720,000, which results in it's cost per enplaned passenger being only $7.20
While a bit of an extreme example, that is why you can't just use an airport's average cost per enplaned passenger to calculate a specific airline's cost to operate at that airport.
This is also the situation that US created at PIT - initially keeping all 50 A/B-con gates while cutting flights and thus enplaned passengers. It's cost stayed the same while being spread over fewer passengers, which drove US' cost per enplaned passenger up compared to other airlines at PIT. The situation today is only somewhat better - US is keeping 10 gates/ramp space/counter space/baggage space to handle only about twice as many passengers as WN does with 3 gates - resulting in US' cost per enplaned passenger being higher than WN's.
Jim
You make one basic error - equating an airport's "per passenger fees" to an airlines cost per passenger to operate there.
The first - an airport's cost per enplaned passenger - is the total paid by all airlines at that airport divided by the total enplaned passengers at that airport. Thus, this is the average cost per enplaned passenger for all airlines
The second - an airline's cost per enplaned passenger at an airport - is the total paid by that one airline at that airport divided by the passengers enplaned by that airline at that airport.
A hypothetical example - an airport which enplanes a total of 300,000 passengers with a cost per enplaned passenger of $12 served by only two airlines - $3.6 million paid by the two airlines combined.
- Airline A uses 16 of 20 available gates, and likewise 80% of ticket counter/ramp/baggage/etc space. It enplanes 200,000 passengers. It therefore pays 80% of that $3.6 million, or $2.88 million. Airline A has a cost per enplaned passenger of $14.40
- Airline B has an efficient operation, enplaning the other 100,000 passengers through the 20% of facilities it pays for. Paying only 20% of that $3.6 million, it's total bill is $720,000, which results in it's cost per enplaned passenger being only $7.20
While a bit of an extreme example, that is why you can't just use an airport's average cost per enplaned passenger to calculate a specific airline's cost to operate at that airport.
This is also the situation that US created at PIT - initially keeping all 50 A/B-con gates while cutting flights and thus enplaned passengers. It's cost stayed the same while being spread over fewer passengers, which drove US' cost per enplaned passenger up compared to other airlines at PIT. The situation today is only somewhat better - US is keeping 10 gates/ramp space/counter space/baggage space to handle only about twice as many passengers as WN does with 3 gates - resulting in US' cost per enplaned passenger being higher than WN's.
Jim
AP
Southwest Cuts Growth Plans Again
Tuesday December 4, 10:30 am ET
By David Koenig, AP Business Writer
Southwest Cuts Growth Plans for Second Time; Expects 4-5 Percent in 2008
DALLAS (AP) -- Southwest Airlines Co. said Tuesday it would slow its planned growth in 2008, the second time this year that the low-cost carrier has reined in expansion as it struggles with high fuel costs.
ADVERTISEMENT
The airline said it would grow 4 percent to 5 percent next year, compared with earlier expectations of 6 percent in 2008. The company will retire planes faster than it adds new ones in a bid to boost profits.
"We are concerned about growing evidence of slowing economic growth that would inevitably affect passenger demand, coupled with a surge in energy prices," Chief Executive Gary C. Kelly said in a statement.
Southwest's announcement came a day after rival Continental Airlines Inc. cut its growth expectations for next year to between 2 percent and 3 percent, down from 3 percent to 4 percent.
Dallas-based Southwest also reported Tuesday that November traffic grew 2.6 percent, measured by miles flown by paying passengers. That growth, however, failed to keep up with a 6.4 percent increase in capacity.
As a result, average occupancy on Southwest flights slipped to 69.3 percent from 71.8 percent in November 2006.
The airline plans to add five to 10 new planes next year, down from its previous plans for 19 Boeing 737s. Chief Financial Officer Laura Wright said the airline would also retire more older jets than previously planned.
Southwest first cut its growth plans from 8 percent to 6 percent in June, and Kelly hinted in November at further tightening.
Southwest has options to buy fuel at below-market rates, which gives it an advantage over its rivals. Still, rising fuel costs are making it harder for the airline to hit its financial goals.
In addition, Wright told investors in New York that nonfuel costs will also rise next year, citing higher maintenance needs.
The airline is also in negotiations with pilots for a new contract that could lead to higher labor costs.
Southwest is trying to offset higher costs by generating more revenue from ticket sales to business travelers. It recently began offering business travelers extra perks, such as early boarding and a drink for a slightly higher fare.
Southwest shares rose a penny to $13.74 in morning trading.
