OAG Changes 4/16/2017: AA Adds CLT-SHV/TOL; DL Cuts SLC-GCC

grbauc · Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:13 am

Cubsrule wrote:
cvgComair wrote:
It all depends on where you fly as well. Not everyone flies to Chicago and Dallas for business/leisure, if you fly to LA/SFO/SEA often, DL would be your best legacy choice. It all depends on the traveler.

Of course, and if you work with the auto industry DL helps you get to Detroit. But the whole point is that, on average, AA has a more appealing basket of hubs for the O&D passenger than does DL. DL also suffers from not having a true hub within 500 miles of BOS.

JFK and LGA don't count?

Cubsrule · Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:23 am

grbauc wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
cvgComair wrote:
It all depends on where you fly as well. Not everyone flies to Chicago and Dallas for business/leisure, if you fly to LA/SFO/SEA often, DL would be your best legacy choice. It all depends on the traveler.

Of course, and if you work with the auto industry DL helps you get to Detroit. But the whole point is that, on average, AA has a more appealing basket of hubs for the O&D passenger than does DL. DL also suffers from not having a true hub within 500 miles of BOS.

JFK and LGA don't count?

Asked and answered . . .

sldispatcher · Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:25 am

rajincajun01 wrote:
Glad to see SHV score another route. That being said, tickets are over $1000 RT. At those levels, it won't last.

I am not seeing those high fares, unless you are referring to out and back same/day.

This is all about connections. At one time, this was one of the biggest non-hub Eagle stations in terms of revenue per a local agent. I have no idea where it ranks now.

This looks like the legacy carriers continuing their reach into domestic markets to grab share at high yield airports. There was also a tax placed on hotel occupancy a year or so ago and this may also have a revenue guarantee tied to it. Will probably be announced in the AM with more details.

It is a little odd to be waiting until Sept to launch, but the schedules are convenient on this end (SHV).

rajincajun01 · Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:41 am

sldispatcher wrote:
rajincajun01 wrote:
Glad to see SHV score another route. That being said, tickets are over $1000 RT. At those levels, it won't last.

I am not seeing those high fares, unless you are referring to out and back same/day.

This is all about connections. At one time, this was one of the biggest non-hub Eagle stations in terms of revenue per a local agent. I have no idea where it ranks now.

This looks like the legacy carriers continuing their reach into domestic markets to grab share at high yield airports. There was also a tax placed on hotel occupancy a year or so ago and this may also have a revenue guarantee tied to it. Will probably be announced in the AM with more details.

It is a little odd to be waiting until Sept to launch, but the schedules are convenient on this end (SHV).

The fares have already dropped since I first looked (especially to cities in Florida, but SHV has the reputation of being one of the most expensive airports in the US. I did forget about the hotel tax the city added recently. The route starts late August (22nd I believe?). I do hope this route gets upgraded to a larger aircraft though as it could be weight restricted on some days.

enilria · Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:54 am

nomorerjs wrote:

Need some balance.

Regarding fanboys, I thought the rush to defend UA by fanboys in the UA drag and drop disaster in the first few pages of that thread showed how out of touch the fanboys on a.net are with public perception of the airline business. It was probably 30-50% UA defenders at the onset. I'd say on FB it was almost nobody.

compensateme · Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:27 pm

FWAERJ wrote:
Let's not forget that AA has a very high yield on TOL-ORD. Because AA is the only legacy in TOL, they print money there - and with CLT, they'll print even more.

TOL is hardly "printing money" At best, it's a marginal market. Loads are poor -- last summer, TOL just barely hit 70%; not good for a 50-seat jet market. And while yields to ORD are high, O/D is poor.

I wouldn't be surprised if TOL was a loss-making market for AA and the long-term goal is to transition service to CLT, which is a lower-cost hub that's better located geographically to handle traffic flows (which, for TOL, tend to be north-south). That'd enable AA the volume to upgauge service and move away from the 50-seat jet.

There was a rumor that UA might re-enter TOL-ORD and give AA some competition, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens given the battle for ORD between UA and AA.

The source of the rumor is the TOL fanboys who've maintained since this forum's inception (yes, nearly 20 years) that UA will return to the market any day now.

Rdh3e · Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:50 pm

rajincajun01 wrote:
sldispatcher wrote:
rajincajun01 wrote:
Glad to see SHV score another route. That being said, tickets are over $1000 RT. At those levels, it won't last.

I am not seeing those high fares, unless you are referring to out and back same/day.

The fares have already dropped since I first looked

It usually takes a day or two for airlines to get the real availability loaded. Often the default is B or M class availability which is quite expensive.

enilria wrote:
It was probably 30-50% UA defenders at the onset. I'd say on FB it was almost nobody.

Lamentably, many people have lost the ability to perceive nuance these days. It's much easier to be a fanboy or a hater than it is to just be an objective observer.

CIDFlyer · Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:03 pm

FWAERJ wrote:
TOL-CLT is the ideal route for AA for a very simple reason: DL isn't in TOL per se. They serve Toledo via DTW. And as a result, there's no ATL service and TOL hasn't seen southern hub access from the Great Recession until now. And ORD is far too out of the way from the south for many to consider TOL, while CLT isn't.

Let's not forget that AA has a very high yield on TOL-ORD. Because AA is the only legacy in TOL, they print money there - and with CLT, they'll print even more.

PHL wouldn't have been as good of a hub as CLT for TOL. AA tried FWA-PHL with big corporate ties on both ends and ended up with half-full planes.

Overall, this is a logical add for AA. Question: what planes will be used? I assume the CR2 or ER4.

I agree I think this route will do well. CLT is a mega hub and with no DL/ATL to compete with it should do well as it can provide a plethora of connections to the southeast and even for some heading to the east coast/southwest. AA already is the only player in town so this should give customers more options.

Nice to see TOL gain some service...at one time UA used to be there as well as NW (via DTW) and DL via CVG/ATL. AA at one point briefly ran TOL-DFW about 10 years ago.

CIDFlyer · Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:09 pm

durangomac wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:
ooslc wrote:
Looks like they're taking the plane from GCC and adding another flight to LWS. Must be a better performer. When I worked the gates in SLC, LWS seems to always be sold out.

Last week's OAG contained a third daily DEN-GCC. I'm sure they are related.

Yes those flights are at-risk flying by OO.

I found an article behind a pay site from March that said the county commissioners decided to move the subsidy money to a third UA GCC-DEN flight and stop funding the DL GCC-SLC flight. I think GCC is just too close to SLC and most would rather drive than fly the route. Makes more sense for the people to fly to DEN and connect to flights to the east.

what airport is GCC? Is it Gillette WY? Mapquest shows that to be 552 miles and an almost 9 hour drive so I wouldnt call that close.

Still DEN makes more sense in that it is due south and can pick up both passengers flying east and west, SLC only really works for pax flying west, and is out of the way for flying east.

braniff722 · Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:10 pm

I can say this about SHV. Passenger numbers have been steadily on the increase these past 3-5 years, even tho I still think SHV has insane pricing to and from here. According to the Shreveport Airport Authority website, we had just over 600,000 passengers book flights to and from here.

I'm a little confused as to why AA is adding this CLT/SHV route, but I welcome it. Guess we will see if it has any legs to stand on. God knows SHV/ORD did great at first, then fell flat on its face shortly thereafter.....

My question is this. Why do you think AA suggested this route and what type of equipment do you think they'll use?

enilria · Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:12 pm

Rdh3e wrote:
enilria wrote:
It was probably 30-50% UA defenders at the onset. I'd say on FB it was almost nobody.

Lamentably, many people have lost the ability to perceive nuance these days. It's much easier to be a fanboy or a hater than it is to just be an objective observer.

100% agree

CIDFlyer wrote:
I agree I think this route will do well.

As a gateway to Florida there is no doubt that AA can fill it up with low G4 fares. The question is whether beyond the load factor it can get the yield needed to make a profit. I have to think that if ATL failed for DL with a larger local market than CLT, it will be a real challenge. I would also argue that the number of low priced drive options from TOL have also multiplied since DL left, with CLE now MUCH cheaper than it was then and a considerable increase in LCC routes at DTW. That makes it much harder to take much of a fare premium to all the top business and leisure markets. Couple those two together and I still see AA filling the plane with low yield Florida pax. We'll see.

Cubsrule · Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:21 pm

enilria wrote:
CIDFlyer wrote:
I agree I think this route will do well.

As a gateway to Florida there is no doubt that AA can fill it up with low G4 fares. The question is whether beyond the load factor it can get the yield needed to make a profit. I have to think that if ATL failed for DL with a larger local market than CLT, it will be a real challenge. I would also argue that the number of low priced drive options from TOL have also multiplied since DL left, with CLE now MUCH cheaper than it was then and a considerable increase in LCC routes at DTW. That makes it much harder to take much of a fare premium to all the top business and leisure markets. Couple those two together and I still see AA filling the plane with low yield Florida pax. We'll see.

The challenge with yields for business passengers is that it may be easier for many business passengers to take the nonstop to DTW and drive down. It's not a difficult drive, and DTW is on the Toledo side of Detroit. In the time it takes to drive from downtown Toledo to TOL, you are more than halfway to DTW. It's the MSY/BTR problem, but it is worse in Toledo because DTW has so much service.

jbs2886 · Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:27 pm

enilria wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:
enilria wrote:
It was probably 30-50% UA defenders at the onset. I'd say on FB it was almost nobody.

Lamentably, many people have lost the ability to perceive nuance these days. It's much easier to be a fanboy or a hater than it is to just be an objective observer.

100% agree
CIDFlyer wrote:
I agree I think this route will do well.

As a gateway to Florida there is no doubt that AA can fill it up with low G4 fares. The question is whether beyond the load factor it can get the yield needed to make a profit. I have to think that if ATL failed for DL with a larger local market than CLT, it will be a real challenge. I would also argue that the number of low priced drive options from TOL have also multiplied since DL left, with CLE now MUCH cheaper than it was then and a considerable increase in LCC routes at DTW. That makes it much harder to take much of a fare premium to all the top business and leisure markets. Couple those two together and I still see AA filling the plane with low yield Florida pax. We'll see.

I'm not sure that DL's failure with ATL is predictive of AA in CLT. Specifically, DL had an incentive not to undercut DTW and cause people in the region to go to TOL and away from DTW.

rajincajun01 · Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:31 pm

braniff722 wrote:
I can say this about SHV. Passenger numbers have been steadily on the increase these past 3-5 years, even tho I still think SHV has insane pricing to and from here. According to the Shreveport Airport Authority website, we had just over 600,000 passengers book flights to and from here.

I'm a little confused as to why AA is adding this CLT/SHV route, but I welcome it. Guess we will see if it has any legs to stand on. God knows SHV/ORD did great at first, then fell flat on its face shortly thereafter.....

My question is this. Why do you think AA suggested this route and what type of equipment do you think they'll use?

AA will use a CR2 on the route operated by PSA. SHV does have a number of travelers to the northeast. This will likely compete with DL, who recently brought mainline back to SHV from ATL.

ahj2000 · Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:39 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
enilria wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:

Lamentably, many people have lost the ability to perceive nuance these days. It's much easier to be a fanboy or a hater than it is to just be an objective observer.

100% agree
CIDFlyer wrote:
I agree I think this route will do well.

As a gateway to Florida there is no doubt that AA can fill it up with low G4 fares. The question is whether beyond the load factor it can get the yield needed to make a profit. I have to think that if ATL failed for DL with a larger local market than CLT, it will be a real challenge. I would also argue that the number of low priced drive options from TOL have also multiplied since DL left, with CLE now MUCH cheaper than it was then and a considerable increase in LCC routes at DTW. That makes it much harder to take much of a fare premium to all the top business and leisure markets. Couple those two together and I still see AA filling the plane with low yield Florida pax. We'll see.

I'm not sure that DL's failure with ATL is predictive of AA in CLT. Specifically, DL had an incentive not to undercut DTW and cause people in the region to go to TOL and away from DTW.

I'm not sure thats entirely true. Atlanta is more expensive than Charlotte and Toledo already has an AA ff base.
CLT, IMO, may also take some of the business cnnx to the northeast from ORD. (TOL-NYC is almost exactly the same through CLT or ORD and priced the same throughout December)

braniff722 · Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:40 pm

rajincajun01 wrote:
braniff722 wrote:
I can say this about SHV. Passenger numbers have been steadily on the increase these past 3-5 years, even tho I still think SHV has insane pricing to and from here. According to the Shreveport Airport Authority website, we had just over 600,000 passengers book flights to and from here.

I'm a little confused as to why AA is adding this CLT/SHV route, but I welcome it. Guess we will see if it has any legs to stand on. God knows SHV/ORD did great at first, then fell flat on its face shortly thereafter.....

My question is this. Why do you think AA suggested this route and what type of equipment do you think they'll use?

AA will use a CR2 on the route operated by PSA. SHV does have a number of travelers to the northeast. This will likely compete with DL, who recently brought mainline back to SHV from ATL.

Ugh, not the CR2. At least Delta stepped it up with a 717. Figured if AA wanted to compete, at least they would use the Baby Bus.

On a side note, even tho this has been said many times here, I'm READY for the CR2 to fly off into history. Hate that plane with a passion.

compensateme · Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:45 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
I'm not sure that DL's failure with ATL is predictive of AA in CLT. Specifically, DL had an incentive not to undercut DTW and cause people in the region to go to TOL and away from DTW.

No, TOL/ATL ended before the merger.

The problem with TOL is that its airport is not necessary. Nearly the entire Toledo-area population is within 40-60 minutes drive time from DTW and the lion's share of the population will spend the extra half hour on the road in exchange for a direct flight, greater frequency & lower fares.

Contrary to the narrative here, TOL clearly struggles for AA -- LF the past two years averaged in the low 70s (and spend most months in the 60s; the average is inflated by a few good months). As I mentioned previously, CLT service is probably an attempt to salvage the market by offering service to a lower-cost hub that's geographically positioned to handle the market's flows.

enilria · Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:18 pm

compensateme wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
I'm not sure that DL's failure with ATL is predictive of AA in CLT. Specifically, DL had an incentive not to undercut DTW and cause people in the region to go to TOL and away from DTW.

No, TOL/ATL ended before the merger.

The problem with TOL is that its airport is not necessary. Nearly the entire Toledo-area population is within 40-60 minutes drive time from DTW and the lion's share of the population will spend the extra half hour on the road in exchange for a direct flight, greater frequency & lower fares.

Contrary to the narrative here, TOL clearly struggles for AA -- LF the past two years averaged in the low 70s (and spend most months in the 60s; the average is inflated by a few good months). As I mentioned previously, CLT service is probably an attempt to salvage the market by offering service to a lower-cost hub that's geographically positioned to handle the market's flows.

For reference of the discussion. TOL-ATL ended in April 2008. TOL-CVG ended in Sep 2008. TOL-DTW operated as NW until Jan 2010 when it became DL code and ended Oct 2010. MSP operated Oct 2010 to March 2011. ATL was further back than I thought. I still think it will be VERY low yield, but I don't doubt the traffic is there to fill it up.

I really don't see anybody flying TOL-ATL-LGA (and paying more for the privilege) when driving to a non-stop is much faster and lower risk in terms of misconnecting.

FWAERJ · Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:39 pm

compensateme wrote:
The problem with TOL is that its airport is not necessary. Nearly the entire Toledo-area population is within 40-60 minutes drive time from DTW and the lion's share of the population will spend the extra half hour on the road in exchange for a direct flight, greater frequency & lower fares.

Contrary to the narrative here, TOL clearly struggles for AA -- LF the past two years averaged in the low 70s (and spend most months in the 60s; the average is inflated by a few good months). As I mentioned previously, CLT service is probably an attempt to salvage the market by offering service to a lower-cost hub that's geographically positioned to handle the market's flows.

Twenty years ago, TOL was handling over 700,000 enplanements. That's more than the all-time records for FWA, SBN, and many other similar airports. If TOL isn't necessary as you suggest, is FWA also unnecessary given that it's a two-hour drive from IND? Is SBN unnecessary because of the two-hour drive to MDW? And back at TOL, should companies like Owens Corning and NSG Pilkington park their corporate jets at DTW instead?

Loads may be in the low 70% range, but yields are a different story. If loads were the whole story, G4 wouldn't have dropped TOL-LAS years ago. In fact, TOL is one of AA's highest-yielding Eagle stations in the Midwest.

flyCMH · Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:29 pm

There are many challenges facing the success of TOL-CLT, as has been made abundantly clear in previous posts. That's not to say that there is no chance of this route actually succeeding.

While Toledo in general is within comfortable driving distance from DTW, it certainly isn't the most convenient option for everyone in the metro. For those in large suburbs such as Perrysburg and Maumee, TOL is far more convenient purely in terms of driving distance. This new service provides these citizens and businesses better connectivity on a far more local level.

This service does open many one-stop connections either not previously available from TOL (FAY, SAV, CAE, DAB) or makes connections far more convenient (RDU, JAX, PUJ, AUA). The Carolinas is a favored area for many Ohioans in general as far as vacation and relocation, so there are many ties between the two regions that this service can help bridge.

A random check of fares shows prices to many places in the Southeast hovering in the $300 range. Prices to the Caribbean are quite pricey now ($700-$900) but will likely trend downward as pricing adapts to the market. I don't doubt there will be a lot of low-yield connections to the standard list of destinations, but the anticipation is those would be balanced out by higher-yielding O&D traffic, CLT-unique connections, and European connections.

Lastly, the route is being sponsored by the local community via the SCASD grant as well as matching funds totaling $1 million. That should give the route about a year to establish itself and, if all goes well, become self-reliant alongside the ORD route.

While recent history hasn't been kind to local air service for a variety of reasons, there is also a possibility that this route could thrive and stem the tide of declining air service in NW Ohio.

compensateme · Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:57 pm

FWAERJ wrote:
Twenty years ago, TOL was handling over 700,000 enplanements. That's more than the all-time records for FWA, SBN, and many other similar airports. If TOL isn't necessary as you suggest, is FWA also unnecessary given that it's a two-hour drive from IND? Is SBN unnecessary because of the two-hour drive to MDW?

What happened over a generation ago is completely irrelevant today. Over the past twenty years, nationally most small airports have shrunk whereas medium/large ones have grown -- a trend that reflects consumer's preference for direct flights, higher frequency & lower fares. TOL is incredibly vulnerable because its furthest suburbs are about an hour's drive from DTW (compared with 2.5 for Fort Wayne's furthest suburbs from IND).

And back at TOL, should companies like Owens Corning and NSG Pilkington park their corporate jets at DTW instead?

Why on Earth are your bringing up executive travel in a conversation about passenger? :confused:

Loads may be in the low 70% range, but yields are a different story. If loads were the whole story, G4 wouldn't have dropped TOL-LAS years ago. In fact, TOL is one of AA's highest-yielding Eagle stations in the Midwest.

And what story do the yields tell? Fact is, AA averages a 70% LF on a 50-seat jet, with the lion's share of traffic connecting. That's the recipe for a marginal route at best... not one that "prints money." As I've mentioned previously, it wouldn't be surprising if AA's attempting to switch TOL from ORD to CLT service -- time will tell.

jbs2886 · Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:01 pm

enilria wrote:
compensateme wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
I'm not sure that DL's failure with ATL is predictive of AA in CLT. Specifically, DL had an incentive not to undercut DTW and cause people in the region to go to TOL and away from DTW.

No, TOL/ATL ended before the merger.

The problem with TOL is that its airport is not necessary. Nearly the entire Toledo-area population is within 40-60 minutes drive time from DTW and the lion's share of the population will spend the extra half hour on the road in exchange for a direct flight, greater frequency & lower fares.

Contrary to the narrative here, TOL clearly struggles for AA -- LF the past two years averaged in the low 70s (and spend most months in the 60s; the average is inflated by a few good months). As I mentioned previously, CLT service is probably an attempt to salvage the market by offering service to a lower-cost hub that's geographically positioned to handle the market's flows.

For reference of the discussion. TOL-ATL ended in April 2008. TOL-CVG ended in Sep 2008. TOL-DTW operated as NW until Jan 2010 when it became DL code and ended Oct 2010. MSP operated Oct 2010 to March 2011. ATL was further back than I thought. I still think it will be VERY low yield, but I don't doubt the traffic is there to fill it up.

I really don't see anybody flying TOL-ATL-LGA (and paying more for the privilege) when driving to a non-stop is much faster and lower risk in terms of misconnecting.

Thanks, it seemed sooner than 2008! Time flies.

AirbusMDCFAN · Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:39 pm

enilria wrote:
FAQ

WHAT IS THIS REPORT?
This compares departures for sale THIS WEEK for the stated period versus what was for sale LAST WEEK...It does NOT compare to last year or now (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED).

THE SCHEDULES SHOWN HERE CHANGE AFTER YOU POST???
-To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often---Winston Churchill. This is data the carriers filed at the point in time it was captured. It's changed since then. You are just going to have to live with it.

HOW DO I READ IT?
XXX-YYY DEC 4>5 JAN 4>5 ; means that the listed airline changed the frequency between the two airports to add from 4 to 5 roundtrips in December and January. No other months were changed. I only list one direction, although it is possible the listed change is only one way. It is too difficult to average the two directions. I assume the change is roundtrip and that is most often the case.

WHERE ARE SEATS SHOWN?
They aren't. This only shows departures.

HOW ARE THE DAILY DEPARTURES CALCULATED?
This report uses total operations for the month listed, divided over the days in the month.

WHAT ARE THE FRACTIONAL FLIGHTS?
Flights that do not operate every day of the month create fractional service. In most cases flights are rounded, but in the case of international service or markets with low frequency, fractions are shown. For example, if a flight operates 4 times in April it will show 4/30=0.133=0.1. Also , a flight that only operates once per week may vary between 0.1 and 0.2 because a weekday may repeat either 4 or 5 times depending on the month.

WHAT ABOUT CARRIERS THAT DON'T PUBLISH A SCHEDULE 9 MONTHS IN ADVANCE?
Most airlines publish schedules 11 months in advance. This report covers the next 9 months. That avoids seeing schedules as they are loaded. Several LCCs load their schedules less than 9 months into the future. I remove the schedule adds if I see them and show a year over year (YOY) comparison if I notice them.

THOSE FLIGHTS AREN'T DELTA, THEY ARE SKYWEST
This report only shows the marketing code. It is too complicated to show all the operators.

THE FREQUENCIES MAY HAVE CHANGED AS YOU SHOW, BUT THE SEATS DIDNT CHANGE BECAUSE OF EQUIPMENT SWAPS
That is a natural weakness of a frequency based report, but it provides something to discuss below.

THIS LOOKS LIKE AN ERROR?
The carriers file the schedules. They do make mistakes. Most of the mistakes I have seen are either related to code shares not being marked as "duplicates" or carriers filing flights with invalid data such as equipment codes that are not standard. This causes flights to not appear.

CHARTERS?
Lately charters have been showing up in the database. I have no idea if that will continue.

I marked some of the ones I thought were interesting with an "*".

2D JFK-GYE JUN 0>0.7 JUL 0>1.0 AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>0.9

7H ANC-ENA MAY 12>11 JUL 12>13
7H ANC-FAI JUL 3>4 AUG 3>4 OCT 3>4 NOV 3>4

**AA CLT-SHV SEP 0>2 OCT 0>2 NOV 0>2 DEC 0>2
**AA CLT-TOL SEP 0>2 OCT 0>2 NOV 0>2 DEC 0>2
*AA DFW-GIG DEC 0>0.3
AA DFW-GRK MAY 6>5
*AA LAX-AKL AUG 1.0>0.1 SEP 1.0>0 OCT 1.0>0.9
AA MIA-CTG DEC 0>0.5
AA ORD-LSE JUN 3>4 JUL 3>4
AA PHX-DFW MAY 11>12 JUN 11>12 JUL 11>12

AD MCO-REC AUG 0.3>0.5
AD MCO-VCP JUL 1.0>1.1

AM IAD-MEX AUG 0.9>1.0
AM SAT-MEX JUN 1.5>1.2 JUL 2>1.1 AUG 1.7>1.0
AM SFO-MEX JUL 3>4 AUG 3>4
AM SJC-GDL AUG 0.8>1.0

Shows up under both codes, apparently
*AS DAL-LGA SEP 0>3 OCT 0>3 NOV 0>4 DEC 0>4
*AS PDX-DAL SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0 NOV 0>1.0 DEC 0>1.0
*AS SEA-DAL SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0 NOV 0>1.0 DEC 0>1.0

B6 BOS-BUF NOV 4>5 DEC 4>5
B6 BOS-LAS SEP 3>4 OCT 3>4 NOV 1.8>3 DEC 1.8>3
B6 JFK-GND NOV 0.6>0.7
B6 JFK-KIN NOV 2>1.8
B6 JFK-PSP DEC 1.0>0.7
B6 TPA-SJU DEC 2>1.8

DL ATL-BZE SEP 1.0>0.9
DL ATL-LIR SEP 1.0>0.9
DL ATL-PLS SEP 1.0>0.9
DL ATL-SJO SEP 2>1.9 OCT 2>1.8 NOV 2>1.9
DL BOS-BNA DEC 0.7>0.5
DL BOS-MKE DEC 0.9>0.5
DL DTW-ITH NOV 1.9>3 DEC 1.8>3
AS response
*DL DTW-PDX SEP 0.8>1.8 OCT 0.9>1.9 NOV 0.9>1.9 DEC 0.8>1.8
DL JFK-NAS SEP 1.0>0.9
DL SEA-PSP DEC 0.6>0.4
**DL SLC-GCC JUL 1.0>0 AUG 1.0>0 SEP 1.0>0 OCT 1.0>0 NOV 1.0>0 DEC 1.0>0
DL SLC-LWS JUL 1.9>3 AUG 2>3 SEP 2.0>3 OCT 2.0>3 DEC 1.6>3

F9 YOY Compare
A lot less ATL
*F9 ATL-LAS SEP 1.8>1.0 OCT 1.9>1.0
F9 ATL-MCI AUG 0.6>0.2
*F9 ATL-MCO AUG 1.0>0.4 SEP 1.0>0 OCT 1.0>0
*F9 ATL-MIA AUG 1.0>0.2 SEP 1.0>0 OCT 1.0>0
F9 ATL-PHX SEP 0.6>0.4
F9 ATL-SAT AUG 0.6>0.2
F9 ATL-STL AUG 0.4>0.2
F9 AUS-MCO AUG 0.6>0.2
F9 BNA-LAS SEP 0.8>0.6 OCT 0.9>0.5
F9 CLE-SFO SEP 0.6>0.4
A lot more COS in a pretty weak season
F9 COS-IAD AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0
F9 COS-MCO AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0.1>1.0
F9 COS-ORD AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0
F9 COS-SAN AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0
F9 CVG-LGA AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0
F9 CVG-PHL AUG 0.6>0.2
F9 DEN-AUS OCT 1.9>1.0
F9 DEN-CLE AUG 3>1.3 SEP 1.9>1.4
F9 DEN-DFW AUG 2>1.0 SEP 2>1.0 OCT 2>1.0
F9 DEN-IND SEP 1.7>1.0 OCT 3>1.0
F9 DEN-MKE AUG 1.4>1.0
F9 DEN-PHL AUG 1.0>2 SEP 1.0>2.0 OCT 1.0>2
F9 DEN-SEA AUG 3>2
F9 DEN-STL AUG 1.0>2 SEP 1.0>2 OCT 1.0>2
a lot less MIA
F9 LAS-MIA AUG 1.0>0 SEP 0.9>0 OCT 1.0>0
F9 LGA-MIA AUG 1.0>0 SEP 1.0>0 OCT 1.0>0
F9 MIA-PHL AUG 0.6>0.2
F9 DFW-MKE SEP 0.4>0.1
F9 DTW-MCO OCT 0.6>1.3
F9 IAD-LAS AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0
F9 IAH-LAS AUG 1.0>0.5 SEP 1.0>0.6 OCT 1.0>0.5
F9 LAS-TPA AUG 0>1.0
F9 MCI-PHL AUG 0.4>0.2
F9 MCO-MSY SEP 0.6>0.4
F9 MCO-SAN AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0.1>1.0
F9 MCO-SJU AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0
F9 MCO-STL OCT 1.0>1.7
F9 MKE-PHL AUG 0.4>0.2
F9 ORD-CUN AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0
F9 PDX-PHX AUG 0.4>0.2
F9 PHL-SAT AUG 0.6>0.2
F9 PHL-SJU AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>0.2
F9 PHL-UST AUG 0.5>0.2
F9 PHX-SEA AUG 0.6>0.2

HA HNL-LIH SEP 18>17 OCT 17>16

NZ HNL-AKL DEC 0.5>0.6

OZ HNL-ICN NOV 0.7>1.0 DEC 0.7>1.0

VS MCO-LGW DEC 1.5>1.7

VVC MIA-MDE MAY 0>0.6 JUN 0>0.5

*VX DAL-LAS AUG 1.2>0.8 SEP 1.2>0 OCT 1.0>0 NOV 1.0>0 DEC 1.0>0
*VX DAL-SEA SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0 NOV 0>1.0 DEC 0>1.0

WS IAH-YYC NOV 0.9>1.7 DEC 0.8>1.7

B6 Dec MCO-PAP 0.0>1

TWFlyGuy · Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:51 pm

I'm kind of surprised at all the doomsday predictions for TOL. Not that AA hasn't ever had a market fail but I'm assuming they have some mildly smart people in route planning at the very least. If it's marginal at best from ORD, then either they will switch to CLT or in reality they think they can grow by adding CLT providing options to the Carolinas and the SE US in general.

What I'd like to see is them add Flint from CLT. Another market AA runs from ORD but does not connect to legacy US hubs. I had been told PHL was more likely but CLT would be nice. Any thoughts? I haven't seen any numbers on FNT but do know WN has pulled down some.

CIDFlyer · Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:03 pm

TWFlyGuy wrote:
I'm kind of surprised at all the doomsday predictions for TOL. Not that AA hasn't ever had a market fail but I'm assuming they have some mildly smart people in route planning at the very least. If it's marginal at best from ORD, then either they will switch to CLT or in reality they think they can grow by adding CLT providing options to the Carolinas and the SE US in general.

What I'd like to see is them add Flint from CLT. Another market AA runs from ORD but does not connect to legacy US hubs. I had been told PHL was more likely but CLT would be nice. Any thoughts? I haven't seen any numbers on FNT but do know WN has pulled down some.

CLT would be a better option for FNT than PHL. PHL didnt really work from FWA and EWR hasnt worked from FNT so I think CLT would be its best bet. Its a mega hub along the lines of DFW and ATL where it seems the chances are better to make it work.

cvgComair · Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:39 pm

TWFlyGuy wrote:
I'm kind of surprised at all the doomsday predictions for TOL. Not that AA hasn't ever had a market fail but I'm assuming they have some mildly smart people in route planning at the very least. If it's marginal at best from ORD, then either they will switch to CLT or in reality they think they can grow by adding CLT providing options to the Carolinas and the SE US in general.

I would like to point out that DL operated 9x/day CVG-TOL, its not like a city with a metro of 608,145 has no demand for air service. I think you are right TWFlyGuy, AA is not clueless, they know what they are doing. While it may be easy for fliers to go through DTW, would they not prefer to save an hour and fly out of TOL? (I previously lived in TOL, and the TOL-CVG flight was the way I got out of Toledo). AA is taking advantage of a market that can support service (and has previously). Looking at records, CVG-TOL averaged 40-60% loads depending on the season, but that was spread over 9 flights a day, a morning and evening could work just fine (like the CLT flight). Anyone know how many flights were operated to ATL, I bet it was never close to CVG, but I am sure it was at least 3-4x a day.

Saying TOL does not deserve air service is absurd, its no different than DAY/CVG, CLE/CAK, etc:
CAK CLE, 40 mi
DAY CVG, 64 mi
TOL DTW, 49 mi

Even at CLE and CVG's peaks, CAK and DAY supported sizable operations. While especially DAY is experiencing a lot of traffic moving to CVG currently, that is not to say the US3 will not continue flights to their hubs. I think AA is taking advantage of a market that is a vacuum, while they are not going to pull off 80-90+ load factors, let face it, their are plenty of profitable routes with lower load factors.

TransGlobalGold · Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:47 pm

CIDFlyer wrote:
durangomac wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:
Last week's OAG contained a third daily DEN-GCC. I'm sure they are related.

Yes those flights are at-risk flying by OO.

I found an article behind a pay site from March that said the county commissioners decided to move the subsidy money to a third UA GCC-DEN flight and stop funding the DL GCC-SLC flight. I think GCC is just too close to SLC and most would rather drive than fly the route. Makes more sense for the people to fly to DEN and connect to flights to the east.

what airport is GCC? Is it Gillette WY? Mapquest shows that to be 552 miles and an almost 9 hour drive so I wouldnt call that close.

Still DEN makes more sense in that it is due south and can pick up both passengers flying east and west, SLC only really works for pax flying west, and is out of the way for flying east.

yeah, it's Gillette. I have no idea where the idea it is close to SLC. If driving, DEN is almost 200 miles closer.

mke717spotter · Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:25 pm

enilria wrote:
DL BOS-MKE DEC 0.9>0.5

I thought they had bumped this up to 2x daily? Did that get rescinded or is it just a seasonal upgrade for the summer?

AVLAirlineFreq · Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:52 pm

Regarding TOL-CLT, won't this be primarily used by business travelers? If you're a cost-conscious leisure traveler, wouldn't you just drive to DTW and likely fly nonstop to many of the destinations you want to go? Who uses TOL-ORD now?

durangomac · Tue Apr 18, 2017 12:22 am

TransGlobalGold wrote:
CIDFlyer wrote:
durangomac wrote:

Yes those flights are at-risk flying by OO.

I found an article behind a pay site from March that said the county commissioners decided to move the subsidy money to a third UA GCC-DEN flight and stop funding the DL GCC-SLC flight. I think GCC is just too close to SLC and most would rather drive than fly the route. Makes more sense for the people to fly to DEN and connect to flights to the east.

what airport is GCC? Is it Gillette WY? Mapquest shows that to be 552 miles and an almost 9 hour drive so I wouldnt call that close.

Still DEN makes more sense in that it is due south and can pick up both passengers flying east and west, SLC only really works for pax flying west, and is out of the way for flying east.

yeah, it's Gillette. I have no idea where the idea it is close to SLC. If driving, DEN is almost 200 miles closer.

You guys are right, I was thinking Rock Springs.

Rdh3e · Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:25 am

mke717spotter wrote:
enilria wrote:
DL BOS-MKE DEC 0.9>0.5

I thought they had bumped this up to 2x daily? Did that get rescinded or is it just a seasonal upgrade for the summer?

It's loaded as 2X to November. I'm seeing a suspension of the market. It will not fly from 12/21-1/2, resumes on 1/3.

braniff2hav · Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:36 am

rajincajun01 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
rajincajun01 wrote:
Glad to see SHV score another route. That being said, tickets are over $1000 RT. At those levels, it won't last.

??? The route has almost zero to do with CLT-SHV O&D.

I'm aware of this. I looked at the more popular connections from SHV (BOS, NYC, DC metro).

CLT is not on the routing of most of the fares out of SHV at the time the service was loaded in SABRE. So prices are going to be higher for a few days. CLT will be added to the routing on fares and begin to level out to whatever the fares are over DFW most likely. Takes a few days.

Yep this route is not at all about SHV-CLT, just like JAN and BTR are not about the local market but about the connecting opportunities beyond CLT up and down the E. Coast and over the Atlantic. CLT is a sleeper giant. Hope that AA eventually moves the SHV originator to a 6A time frame so that they can make take advantage of the Caribbean connection bank in the morning.

tys777 · Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:33 am

flyCMH wrote:
There are many challenges facing the success of TOL-CLT, as has been made abundantly clear in previous posts. That's not to say that there is no chance of this route actually succeeding.

While Toledo in general is within comfortable driving distance from DTW, it certainly isn't the most convenient option for everyone in the metro. For those in large suburbs such as Perrysburg and Maumee, TOL is far more convenient purely in terms of driving distance. This new service provides these citizens and businesses better connectivity on a far more local level.

This service does open many one-stop connections either not previously available from TOL (FAY, SAV, CAE, DAB) or makes connections far more convenient (RDU, JAX, PUJ, AUA). The Carolinas is a favored area for many Ohioans in general as far as vacation and relocation, so there are many ties between the two regions that this service can help bridge.

A random check of fares shows prices to many places in the Southeast hovering in the $300 range. Prices to the Caribbean are quite pricey now ($700-$900) but will likely trend downward as pricing adapts to the market. I don't doubt there will be a lot of low-yield connections to the standard list of destinations, but the anticipation is those would be balanced out by higher-yielding O&D traffic, CLT-unique connections, and European connections.

Lastly, the route is being sponsored by the local community via the SCASD grant as well as matching funds totaling $1 million. That should give the route about a year to establish itself and, if all goes well, become self-reliant alongside the ORD route.

While recent history hasn't been kind to local air service for a variety of reasons, there is also a possibility that this route could thrive and stem the tide of declining air service in NW Ohio.

I'm not sure I would say that TOL is terribly more convenient for Perrysburg residents. 25 min to TOL, vs 60 min to DTW (Plus you need to choose turnpike, or US-2 which both suck). The 35 min extra is a few gallons of gas and really not that much on the time side of things. That is exactly why TOL struggles; look at the southern most suburb (BG doesn't count) and it is still a 30 min drive to Swanton to get to the airport. .

If TOL had been built out near Metcalf Field, I think we would have a very different picture when it comes to air service. But, given the hindsight that they have, many communities would have done things differently.

compensateme · Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:35 pm

tys777 wrote:
I'm not sure I would say that TOL is terribly more convenient for Perrysburg residents. 25 min to TOL, vs 60 min to DTW (Plus you need to choose turnpike, or US-2 which both suck). The 35 min extra is a few gallons of gas and really not that much on the time side of things. That is exactly why TOL struggles; look at the southern most suburb (BG doesn't count) and it is still a 30 min drive to Swanton to get to the airport. .

If TOL had been built out near Metcalf Field, I think we would have a very different picture when it comes to air service. But, given the hindsight that they have, many communities would have done things differently.

TOL's problem is not its location, but rather DTW's location in relative to the Toledo market. Corporate passengers have long indicated they'd rather drive to DTW for access to an array of frequencies on direct flights. Leisure travelers have long signaled that they will drive to DTW for cheaper fares and direct flights. TOL's passenger boom derived from the original AirTran's service to Orlando and later the Valujet DBA AirTran's service to Atlanta. While the airline could fill up seats, unfortunately it couldn't do so at sustainable prices.

TOL's passenger numbers slid throughout the 1990s before swelling once AirTran inaugurated flights to MCO (and its prices were matched by others). At that point, TOL planned an expansion -- which its hired consultants (The Boyd Group, IIRC) advised against, correctly projecting that small airports would increasingly focus on corporate travel, with leisure concentrated amongst volume.

Dominion301 · Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:59 pm

Rdh3e wrote:
mke717spotter wrote:
enilria wrote:
DL BOS-MKE DEC 0.9>0.5

I thought they had bumped this up to 2x daily? Did that get rescinded or is it just a seasonal upgrade for the summer?

It's loaded as 2X to November. I'm seeing a suspension of the market. It will not fly from 12/21-1/2, resumes on 1/3.

Makes sense. A lot of extremely business-heavy non-hub routes get suspended over XMAS/New Year's when business traffic is non-existent. Like others have said, there's nothing to see here.

enilria · Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:02 pm

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:
Regarding TOL-CLT, won't this be primarily used by business travelers? If you're a cost-conscious leisure traveler, wouldn't you just drive to DTW and likely fly nonstop to many of the destinations you want to go? Who uses TOL-ORD now?

Sort of. Business travelers are about time, not money to a larger extent. So, it will still be shorter to drive to almost everywhere (and less risky for connecting disruption) unless it is a market like SAV that isn't non-stop from either. G4 attracts leisure to TOL because it isn't worth the drive with low fares at TOL. So you can't say TOL is more valuable for business travelers and the leisure passengers drive as a rule.

TWFlyGuy · Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:43 pm

TOL could end up being what DAY was to CVG for a long time. lots of people drove to DAY to connect through CVG just for a lower fare. I did a spot check for myself and found TOL to be ~$50 cheaper which coupled with a rental car savings and only adding 30 min to my drive is worth it to fly to TOL.

Rdh3e · Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:37 pm

I was curious about all this conversation surrounding TOL so I ran some numbers. Here are my findings:

1) AA has 21 markets from ORD between 200-400mi.
2) On segment fare (revenue prorated to the actual flight, not "total fare") TOL is #16 of 21
3) On a stage length adjusted basis TOL is #13 of 21
4) TOL load factors are #19 of 21
5) Combining the fares and LF to get stage length adjusted PRASM, TOL is #21 of 21, making it the worst flight in its peer group for AA at ORD.

enilria · Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:06 pm

Rdh3e wrote:
I was curious about all this conversation surrounding TOL so I ran some numbers. Here are my findings:

1) AA has 21 markets from ORD between 200-400mi.
2) On segment fare (revenue prorated to the actual flight, not "total fare") TOL is #16 of 21
3) On a stage length adjusted basis TOL is #13 of 21
4) TOL load factors are #19 of 21
5) Combining the fares and LF to get stage length adjusted PRASM, TOL is #21 of 21, making it the worst flight in its peer group for AA at ORD.

I have something that compares route profitability using DOT data. It shows TOL-ORD is not as bad as I would have thought. It's was actually fairly average until 2015 when it dropped quite a bit to well below average, but came back in the last half of 2016 to just a bit below average. So overall, it's not really awful and doing better. Still, not quite good enough to justify this new route without $1m in subsidy. I tend to think CLT will hurt ORD just enough so that they will cut one of them at the end of the subsidy, probably CLT.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net