msycajun wrote:

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

On the home front, I think we'll see AVL-MSY in the next year or so.

Would love to see that, it's a really cool city. The numbers are pretty low though, about 11 PDEW, add 23 to that if you include GSP. I guess being a base helps. I wonder if G4 starts international flying that they might do something like a direct AVL-MSY-CUN, making use of MSY's vast international facilities and lack of competition relative to the Florida airports as a way to serve airports that don't have regular international service. Or maybe bring back TUL and do something like TUL-MSY-MBJ.

I'd love to see something like that, but I admittedly recognize that it may be pretty far in the future for G4 given their current model.

I wonder what kind of stimulation of traffic G4 is responsible for when it starts a market, particularly given that they only fly point-to-point. It must be substantial. The one nice thing about a potential route like MSY-AVL is, much like G4's AVL-Florida markets, the demand will likely be bi-directional.

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

msycajun wrote:

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

On the home front, I think we'll see AVL-MSY in the next year or so.

Would love to see that, it's a really cool city. The numbers are pretty low though, about 11 PDEW, add 23 to that if you include GSP. I guess being a base helps. I wonder if G4 starts international flying that they might do something like a direct AVL-MSY-CUN, making use of MSY's vast international facilities and lack of competition relative to the Florida airports as a way to serve airports that don't have regular international service. Or maybe bring back TUL and do something like TUL-MSY-MBJ.

I'd love to see something like that, but I admittedly recognize that it may be pretty far in the future for G4 given their current model.

I wonder what kind of stimulation of traffic G4 is responsible for when it starts a market, particularly given that they only fly point-to-point. It must be substantial. The one nice thing about a potential route like MSY-AVL is, much like G4's AVL-Florida markets, the demand will likely be bi-directional.

I agree the stimulation is fairly significant. I think you have to look at more than PDEW currently on the route. How many people will the flight collect that are driving to other airports or just driving to New Orleans. Also, it will stimulate passengers that would vacation elsewhere or just stay at home. Obviously this is impossible to predict, but I am sure Allegiant has tools/previous data to predict the stimulation. A personal example is last May I had a week off. We were planning to stay at home, but I saw cheap fares on TYS-VPS so we made a quick trip and flight cost around $500 for 4 tickets. However had Allegiant not been flying the route, we would have not gone at all (drive or fly).

Midwestindy wrote:

1.I think CVG will get more flights then those three you mentioned

2.Do you think all those destinations are a lot for SFB to absorb without any connections. Could G4 do some 1 stop no plane change at SFB/PIE?

3.I'll throw IND-CUN/AUA/MBJ into the conversation

4.And also would G4 consider SJD?

1.CVG will probably get more but this is my pick for starters.
2.Yes SFB can absorb the traffic without connections. Over a few years I would expect SFB to get a a good increase in destinations to the Caribbean and Central America and Mexico. Keep in mind these flights will only be once a week or a few times a week. G4 will not do connections, they have made that clear.
3.With the new base in IND I would agree.
4.From LAS/OAK yes and eventually AZA.

If G4 moved into BDL I could see the following:

AZA (America West used to fly into PHX and I believe Phoenix may be the largest market not served from BDL)
MSY
AUS
LAS (competes with WN)
SJU (competes with B6 but lots of demand with Puerto Rican population in CT/MA)
JAX
VPS

Longshot-

SAN
OAK (competes with UA SFO flight)
CVG (competes with DL)
LAX (competes with AA)
MRY (competes with NK)

deltadudejg wrote:

As of last Tuesday PIE is all Airbus.

I knew it was coming....but that truly makes me sad.


I suppose PGD is almost gone as well.

I still can't believe that they're not @ SRQ. Vacation spot in Florida, but with 2 less-costly airport nearby. Do they even SELL vacation packages to Sarasota/Bradenton?

FATFlyer wrote:

The aircraft arriving are mainly replacing MDs in the fleet, by the end of the year there will only be 2 MD bases left.

SFB & LAS ?

When are the mad-dogs to totally gone?
...and are there still 2 757s left? If so, when will these be gone?

I would like to see more expansion from EWR to smaller secondary cities. Especially those with no UA link. NYC is a big draw, could be successful.

cbphoto wrote:

deltadudejg wrote:

Northwest1988 wrote:

What cities are currently MD-80 bases? It was mentioned that LAS and SFB will be the last and all MD-80 flying is being consolidated to those two cities. Just curious what cities are still MD bases other than Vegas or Orlando at this time?

Additionally AVL and ROA until September.

Uhh you mean AVL and MYR? Allegiant does not have any sort of base in ROA. Also, AVL and MYR will be MD bases until November, when MYR will close for the season and the 2 Airbus that are based in Destin will be moved up to AVL. Once that is complete. SFB and LAS will be the only two MD bases left, with approximately 2 being retired a month, until they are all gone.

Our ROA flight AAY1246/7 is still an MD-80. Looking at the rotation it appears it flies AVL-PIE-ROA-PIE-AVL

727LOVER wrote:

deltadudejg wrote:

As of last Tuesday PIE is all Airbus.

I knew it was coming....but that truly makes me sad.

I suppose PGD is almost gone as well.

I still can't believe that they're not @ SRQ. Vacation spot in Florida, but with 2 less-costly airport nearby. Do they even SELL vacation packages to Sarasota/Bradenton?

Yeah I am personally a tad bit sad, you can't beat the classics. However overall it's a good thing, less noise complaints from the area, less high power engine runs for MX. There has been mixed reactions from the base about all these Airbus aircraft.

727LOVER wrote:

I still can't believe that they're not @ SRQ. Vacation spot in Florida, but with 2 less-costly airport nearby. Do they even SELL vacation packages to Sarasota/Bradenton?

G4 currently sells packages to 1 hotel in the Sarasota area.
http://www.allegiantair.com/hotel/us/fl/tampa/sandcastle-resort-lido-beach

727LOVER wrote:

When are the mad-dogs to totally gone?
...and are there still 2 757s left? If so, when will these be gone?

The current fleet plan is for all MDs to be gone by sometime around early to mid-2019. They have currently lined up enough Airbus equipment to replace them all and grow the fleet by a few additional aircraft. They currently look to have 92 aircraft when the last MD retires, that would 4 additional aircraft over the current fleet size.

The 757s are scheduled to leave the fleet in the next 3 to 6 months.

msycajun wrote:

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

On the home front, I think we'll see AVL-MSY in the next year or so.

Would love to see that, it's a really cool city. The numbers are pretty low though, about 11 PDEW, add 23 to that if you include GSP. I guess being a base helps. I wonder if G4 starts international flying that they might do something like a direct AVL-MSY-CUN, making use of MSY's vast international facilities and lack of competition relative to the Florida airports as a way to serve airports that don't have regular international service. Or maybe bring back TUL and do something like TUL-MSY-MBJ.

I believe AVL-MSY could be a "two way" route for G4 as both cities/areas could draw visitors from both areas.

deltadudejg wrote:

cbphoto wrote:

deltadudejg wrote:

Additionally AVL and ROA until September.

Uhh you mean AVL and MYR? Allegiant does not have any sort of base in ROA. Also, AVL and MYR will be MD bases until November, when MYR will close for the season and the 2 Airbus that are based in Destin will be moved up to AVL. Once that is complete. SFB and LAS will be the only two MD bases left, with approximately 2 being retired a month, until they are all gone.

Our ROA flight AAY1246/7 is still an MD-80. Looking at the rotation it appears it flies AVL-PIE-ROA-PIE-AVL

Lots of routes are still on the MD-80, the current MD-80 bases are SFB, LAS, AVL and MYR. Once November comes, it will be down to LAS and SFB. That's all I was getting at in regards to MD80 bases!

wedgetail737 wrote:

I think PAE-LAS and maybe AZA.

Six months ago, I figured this was almost a certainty, despite the proximity of BLI. With Alaska now committed to serve PAE, and I strongly suspect planning to operate PAE-LAS, I'm now quite uncertain.

And with United now also planning flights to SFO, another possible Allegiant destination from PAE would face competition.

cbphoto wrote:

deltadudejg wrote:

cbphoto wrote:

Uhh you mean AVL and MYR? Allegiant does not have any sort of base in ROA. Also, AVL and MYR will be MD bases until November, when MYR will close for the season and the 2 Airbus that are based in Destin will be moved up to AVL. Once that is complete. SFB and LAS will be the only two MD bases left, with approximately 2 being retired a month, until they are all gone.

Our ROA flight AAY1246/7 is still an MD-80. Looking at the rotation it appears it flies AVL-PIE-ROA-PIE-AVL

Lots of routes are still on the MD-80, the current MD-80 bases are SFB, LAS, AVL and MYR. Once November comes, it will be down to LAS and SFB. That's all I was getting at in regards to MD80 bases!

No worries! All I was told at work was our 80s are gone, and to expect to see them from AVL and ROA. I tend to forget that G4 flies some routes in that fashion that I mentioned above.

I would like to see G4 come back to GYY and maybe create a Chicago focus city there, they could fly from some destinations and sell some Chicago packages, similar to what they do at EWR. Isnt GYY connected to a train that goes to downtown Chicago?

Wonder if G4 will ever give AZA-SFB a go? Have they in the past? I know they fly AZA-PIE, why not SFB?

So Allegiant is coming to ORF in the fall, serving Clearwater, Sanford and Ft. Lauderdale. I am disappointed that they aren't flying to JAX. They tried JAX from nearby RIC last year which I guess didn't work out but I think JAX-ORF could (WN used to fly JAX-ORF 2x daily for over a decade up until about 4 years ago, nowadays they seem to be much more interested in funneling folks through their hubs instead).

CIDFlyer wrote:

I would like to see G4 come back to GYY and maybe create a Chicago focus city there, they could fly from some destinations and sell some Chicago packages, similar to what they do at EWR. Isnt GYY connected to a train that goes to downtown Chicago?

Yup, the South Shore electrified line goes past GYY.

msycajun wrote:

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

On the home front, I think we'll see AVL-MSY in the next year or so.

Would love to see that, it's a really cool city. The numbers are pretty low though, about 11 PDEW, add 23 to that if you include GSP. I guess being a base helps. I wonder if G4 starts international flying that they might do something like a direct AVL-MSY-CUN, making use of MSY's vast international facilities and lack of competition relative to the Florida airports as a way to serve airports that don't have regular international service. Or maybe bring back TUL and do something like TUL-MSY-MBJ.

I could see AVL-MSY. Remember Allegiant is all about stimulating traffic that would otherwise drive. Currently, it's a 10-12 hr drive through Atlanta (gross), and I could see people taking a plane instead if it is cheap enough.

ahj2000 wrote:

msycajun wrote:

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

On the home front, I think we'll see AVL-MSY in the next year or so.

Would love to see that, it's a really cool city. The numbers are pretty low though, about 11 PDEW, add 23 to that if you include GSP. I guess being a base helps. I wonder if G4 starts international flying that they might do something like a direct AVL-MSY-CUN, making use of MSY's vast international facilities and lack of competition relative to the Florida airports as a way to serve airports that don't have regular international service. Or maybe bring back TUL and do something like TUL-MSY-MBJ.

I could see AVL-MSY. Remember Allegiant is all about stimulating traffic that would otherwise drive. Currently, it's a 10-12 hr drive through Atlanta (gross), and I could see people taking a plane instead if it is cheap enough.

Even 100% stimulation isn't going to fill planes on that route though. G4 already tried MSY-JAX which is another route with "destinations" on both sides. That had and has a PDEW of 50-60 without a nonstop and G4 couldn't stimulate enough demand to make that work, so I have a hard time seeing them making something with half the pax work absent connections or through flights.

I wonder if Allegiant will expand more into the larger markets. It has a few such as LAX and it more recenlty added EWR, but it lacks ATL, DFW, IAH, PHL, IAD and other hub airports. Pax in the medium size markets want what's offered in the larger markets, including TATL flights on BA, but I'm sure pax in the larger markets want the additional airline choices, low fares and variety of carriers, service to alternate airports, and thus even Allegiant. The benefit of serving a large market is the number of potential pax.

In DFW, for example, it could offer DFW-SFB, AZA and maybe CVG. I'm a little surprised that Spirit is the only low fare choice carrier out of DFW, with exception of minuscule Frontier presence, and neither Frontier or JetBlue offer a nonstop to Florida.

phluser wrote:

I wonder if Allegiant will expand more into the larger markets. It has a few such as LAX and it more recenlty added EWR, but it lacks ATL, DFW, IAH, PHL, IAD and other hub airports. Pax in the medium size markets want what's offered in the larger markets, including TATL flights on BA, but I'm sure pax in the larger markets want the additional airline choices, low fares and variety of carriers, service to alternate airports, and thus even Allegiant. The benefit of serving a large market is the number of potential pax.

In DFW, for example, it could offer DFW-SFB, AZA and maybe CVG. I'm a little surprised that Spirit is the only low fare choice carrier out of DFW, with exception of minuscule Frontier presence, and neither Frontier or JetBlue offer a nonstop to Florida.

Bigger market= More competition for G4, and G4 likes to avoid that. A route like DFW to SFB has to deal with pesky NK, plus F9/WN, G4 would much rather have the market to themselves.

But I agree G4 may expand into larger markets, because from places like CVG they already fly to all the Florida/Coastal destinations, so they have had to expand into more non-traditional leisure routes from CVG like DEN/EWR/RDU/BWI/PVD which is an interesting indication of what is to come from G4.

In terms of large markets, I'd expect them to expand their OAK/SAN/EWR/BWI operations in the next year, but also maybe add additional secondary international routes from those large markets as well.

AVL is a base? How much traffic does AVL generate, with the more established station at GSP just down the street?

GSPSPOT wrote:

AVL is a base? How much traffic does AVL generate, with the more established station at GSP just down the street?

The problem is GSP is expensive to operate out of because of their high landing fees. If it's cheaper to fly to AVL, they will. Also GSP has some notoriously difficult management to deal with at the airport so I'm sure that doesn't help.

GSPSPOT wrote:

AVL is a base? How much traffic does AVL generate, with the more established station at GSP just down the street?

G4 nonstops
GSP: 4
AVL: 7

G4 passengers both ways June 16-May 17
GSP: 141,000
AVL: 272,000

Why do you consider GSP the more established station?

msycajun wrote:

Even 100% stimulation isn't going to fill planes on that route though. G4 already tried MSY-JAX which is another route with "destinations" on both sides. That had and has a PDEW of 50-60 without a nonstop and G4 couldn't stimulate enough demand to make that work, so I have a hard time seeing them making something with half the pax work absent connections or through flights.

As an aside, JAX has been an interesting market for G4. They only have flights to six markets from JAX, all of which are relatively clustered together in the Ohio Valley region: CVG, CLE, PIT, IND, BLV, and LCK. G4 also tried AVL-JAX for a while, but it's a relatively easy drive (6.5 hours) and it didn't stick.

Would Allegiant Air seek a sublease of the AA gates that are currently in use by Alaska Airlines at Dallas Love Field? If Allegiant Air intends to start service out of Dallas Love Field, Allegiant Air would be entitled to access to gates at Dallas Love Field under Subsection (a) of Section 5 of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006, which states that "to accommodate new entrant air carriers, the city of Dallas shall honor the scarce resource provision of the existing Love Field leases" and under subsection (b) of Section 3 of the 5-party agreement (found at http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/dal_ResolveWrightAmendment.pdf) which states that "To the extent a new entrant carrier seeks to enter Love Field, the City of Dallas will seek voluntary accommodation from its existing carriers to accommodate the new entrant service. If the existing carriers are not able or are not willing to accommodate the new entrant service, then the City of Dallas agrees to require the sharing of preferential lease gates, pursuant to Dallas' existing lease agreements."

jplatts wrote:

Would Allegiant Air seek a sublease of the AA gates that are currently in use by Alaska Airlines at Dallas Love Field? If Allegiant Air intends to start service out of Dallas Love Field, Allegiant Air would be entitled to access to gates at Dallas Love Field under Subsection (a) of Section 5 of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006, which states that "to accommodate new entrant air carriers, the city of Dallas shall honor the scarce resource provision of the existing Love Field leases" and under subsection (b) of Section 3 of the 5-party agreement (found at http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/dal_ResolveWrightAmendment.pdf) which states that "To the extent a new entrant carrier seeks to enter Love Field, the City of Dallas will seek voluntary accommodation from its existing carriers to accommodate the new entrant service. If the existing carriers are not able or are not willing to accommodate the new entrant service, then the City of Dallas agrees to require the sharing of preferential lease gates, pursuant to Dallas' existing lease agreements."

1) Alaska is committed to Love. Seattle, Portland, San José, and San Diego all start soon, and they have mentioned they want to be at both Dallas area airports
2) Can Allegiant take the competition from Southwest, who would fly to the same metros (probably not the same airport)?
3) Love is a bit expensive for an airport it's size, no?
If they wanted to serve Dallas, I'd look at trying to get a Fort Worth Airport or Addison, assuming there ia space and capital for a new terminal.

ahj2000 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

Would Allegiant Air seek a sublease of the AA gates that are currently in use by Alaska Airlines at Dallas Love Field? If Allegiant Air intends to start service out of Dallas Love Field, Allegiant Air would be entitled to access to gates at Dallas Love Field under Subsection (a) of Section 5 of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006, which states that "to accommodate new entrant air carriers, the city of Dallas shall honor the scarce resource provision of the existing Love Field leases" and under subsection (b) of Section 3 of the 5-party agreement (found at http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/dal_ResolveWrightAmendment.pdf) which states that "To the extent a new entrant carrier seeks to enter Love Field, the City of Dallas will seek voluntary accommodation from its existing carriers to accommodate the new entrant service. If the existing carriers are not able or are not willing to accommodate the new entrant service, then the City of Dallas agrees to require the sharing of preferential lease gates, pursuant to Dallas' existing lease agreements."

1) Alaska is committed to Love. Seattle, Portland, San José, and San Diego all start soon, and they have mentioned they want to be at both Dallas area airports
2) Can Allegiant take the competition from Southwest, who would fly to the same metros (probably not the same airport)?
3) Love is a bit expensive for an airport it's size, no?
If they wanted to serve Dallas, I'd look at trying to get a Fort Worth Airport or Addison, assuming there ia space and capital for a new terminal.

Allegiant Air does serve some few vacation destinations that Southwest Airlines doesn't even serve, including Asheville, Bozeman, Ft. Walton Beach, Kalispell, Knoxville, Montrose, Myrtle Beach, Palm Springs, and Savannah. In addition, Southwest only has 2 daily nonstops from DAL to TPA, only 2 daily nonstops from DAL to FLL, only 1 seasonal weekend-only nonstop from DAL to JAX, and no nonstop service from DAL to RSW.

jplatts wrote:

Would Allegiant Air seek a sublease of the AA gates that are currently in use by Alaska Airlines at Dallas Love Field? If Allegiant Air intends to start service out of Dallas Love Field, Allegiant Air would be entitled to access to gates at Dallas Love Field under Subsection (a) of Section 5 of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006, which states that "to accommodate new entrant air carriers, the city of Dallas shall honor the scarce resource provision of the existing Love Field leases" and under subsection (b) of Section 3 of the 5-party agreement (found at http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/dal_ResolveWrightAmendment.pdf) which states that "To the extent a new entrant carrier seeks to enter Love Field, the City of Dallas will seek voluntary accommodation from its existing carriers to accommodate the new entrant service. If the existing carriers are not able or are not willing to accommodate the new entrant service, then the City of Dallas agrees to require the sharing of preferential lease gates, pursuant to Dallas' existing lease agreements."

Not without court approval. Neither AS nor G4 wants to open up that mess. It's a money pit.

atypical wrote:

jplatts wrote:

Would Allegiant Air seek a sublease of the AA gates that are currently in use by Alaska Airlines at Dallas Love Field? If Allegiant Air intends to start service out of Dallas Love Field, Allegiant Air would be entitled to access to gates at Dallas Love Field under Subsection (a) of Section 5 of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006, which states that "to accommodate new entrant air carriers, the city of Dallas shall honor the scarce resource provision of the existing Love Field leases" and under subsection (b) of Section 3 of the 5-party agreement (found at http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/pdf/dal_ResolveWrightAmendment.pdf) which states that "To the extent a new entrant carrier seeks to enter Love Field, the City of Dallas will seek voluntary accommodation from its existing carriers to accommodate the new entrant service. If the existing carriers are not able or are not willing to accommodate the new entrant service, then the City of Dallas agrees to require the sharing of preferential lease gates, pursuant to Dallas' existing lease agreements."

Not without court approval. Neither AS nor G4 wants to open up that mess. It's a money pit.

The court and the US Department of Justice would likely approve Allegiant's request to sublease AA gates at Dallas Love Field if Allegiant intends to serve DAL for the following reasons:

• Allegiant is a ULCC and not a legacy airline.
• Allegiant would be adding nonstop service from DAL to vacation destinations that airlines other than AA would not serve nonstop from Dallas if Allegiant intends to sublease gates at DAL.
• Allegiant serves vacation destinations that do not currently have any service on Southwest Airlines and that Southwest Airlines does not intend to serve in the near future.
• Allegiant does not currently have any service to DAL or DFW.
• Allegiant would clearly be considered to be a new entrant air carrier under the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 and the 5-party agreement, and the new entrant air carrier accommodation provisions of subsection (a) of Section 5 of the Wright Amendment Reform Act and subsection (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the 5-party agreement would be applicable to the accommodation of Allegiant Air service out of DAL if Allegiant Air intends to start service out of DAL.
• The City of Dallas currently does have obligations under the 5-party agreement and subsection (a) of Section 5 of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 to accommodate Allegiant's service out of DAL if Allegiant intends to serve DAL, and the City of Dallas can also require AA to share its gates with Allegiant Air under subsection (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the 5-party agreement.
• Allowing Allegiant's sublease of the AA gates at DAL would clearly lead to increased competition if Allegiant does start service out of DAL.

What about some expansion at Newburgh/Stewart? With Norwegian now serving this airport there's quite a lot of focus on it and the scheduled bus service between New York City and Stewart could also benefit Allegiant. They already got some flights out of there, but there's plenty of room for growth. They might even match their schedule to Norwegian. Even if they don't have an official feeder deal it might get them a number of self-transfers from people who take a cheap TATL flight on Norwegian and then connect to Allegian to take them further into America.

jplatts wrote:

atypical wrote:

Not without court approval. Neither AS nor G4 wants to open up that mess. It's a money pit.

The court and the US Department of Justice would likely approve Allegiant's request to sublease AA gates at Dallas Love Field if Allegiant intends to serve DAL for the following reasons:

• Allegiant is a ULCC and not a legacy airline.
• Allegiant would be adding nonstop service from DAL to vacation destinations that airlines other than AA would not serve nonstop from Dallas if Allegiant intends to sublease gates at DAL.
• Allegiant serves vacation destinations that do not currently have any service on Southwest Airlines and that Southwest Airlines does not intend to serve in the near future.
• Allegiant does not currently have any service to DAL or DFW.
• Allegiant would clearly be considered to be a new entrant air carrier under the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 and the 5-party agreement, and the new entrant air carrier accommodation provisions of subsection (a) of Section 5 of the Wright Amendment Reform Act and subsection (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the 5-party agreement would be applicable to the accommodation of Allegiant Air service out of DAL if Allegiant Air intends to start service out of DAL.
• The City of Dallas currently does have obligations under the 5-party agreement and subsection (a) of Section 5 of the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 to accommodate Allegiant's service out of DAL if Allegiant intends to serve DAL, and the City of Dallas can also require AA to share its gates with Allegiant Air under subsection (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the 5-party agreement.
• Allowing Allegiant's sublease of the AA gates at DAL would clearly lead to increased competition if Allegiant does start service out of DAL.

I agree completely. By "money pit" I meant that AS would have be apart of the petition and would probably never recoup expenses. G4 would also have to be apart of the petition and those kinds of expenses clash with its operational model.

I am sure all parties involved would hire outside law firms (since this is apart of an acquisition settlement and those lawyers are probably not on staff) and for part time use of only two gates I doubt anyone could make a compelling business case to justify the expense.

Doable, yes. Feasible, I doubt it.

I also should note that his is based upon an agreement made by AS and G4 prior to any governmental involvement. The "scarce resources" clause not applicable since a voluntary agreement is being made. New entrant accommodations apply if no voluntary agreements can be reached. A reasonable business case for G4 becomes abysmal if they need to fight an accommodation denial by the Director of Aviation because their chances of prevailing are far from certain and a potential expense that will never get recouped.

Allegiant's CEO said today they are retiring all their MDs by the end of 2018 now. A year earlier than expected. Good to hear.

Here is a link to the fleet size projected by aircraft through the end of 2018 by qtr.

https://twitter.com/ghimlay/status/923285191153586176

Jshank83 wrote:

Allegiant's CEO said today they are retiring all their MDs by the end of 2018 now. A year earlier than expected. Good to hear.

IS IT ??!??!???!??!??!??!??!?!??!


Horrible news !!!!

CIDFlyer wrote:

I would like to see G4 come back to GYY and maybe create a Chicago focus city there, they could fly from some destinations and sell some Chicago packages, similar to what they do at EWR. Isnt GYY connected to a train that goes to downtown Chicago?

GYY for G4 is not going to draw significant pax from downtown Chicago, and possibly wouldn't draw a single passenger. Downtown to ORD and MDW are incredibly convenient with frequent trains and shuttles. Near south side will use MDW predominantly. GYY is going to attract state-line IL and northwestern IN pax and that's a far bigger population base compared to most cities G4 serves. The South Shore serves the airport but it is an intercity rail system and does not have enough service to be anywhere near as convenient. Between 6:00AM and 12:00AM there are about 15 EB trains that stop at GYY. In compassion CTA operates 15 trains between downtown and MDW by 9:00AM before GYY can be seriously considered a real alternative passenger airport in the Chicago area it will need a critical mass of flights that is not going to happen with G4.

I am not saying flight can not do well at GYY (G4's previous complaint was the short runway, I do not know about LF) but the market it seeks is one that is very close to the airport. If they attempt to start service in a Chicago wide area rather than targeting NW IN/SL IL then they will be adopting legacy carrier methods and throwing out the methods that have made them a success. I think there is great potential for success for G4 at GYY but the runway has sub substantially lengthened for 2(?) years now and G4 has remained focused elsewhere. My opinion is that GYY is probably even lower priority since G4 has decided to expand into major airports like EWR and LAX, further I think MDW is probably the most likely target (note these are conjectures, and immensely debatable). The issue then becomes GYY having a much smaller catchment in which it can effectively draw and that MDW overlaps GYY's entire catchment.

I am wondering if G4 might consider MHT? Not to end their service at PSM but to supplement it. MHT has had nonstop service on WN to both LAS and PHX in the past. I could see G4 operating 2 or 3 weekly to either destination. I could see PGD,PIE and SFD working from MHT 2Xor 3x weekly as well.

I would think G4 has a schedule update soon. I am curious to see what their summer flying will look like.

Jshank83 wrote:

I would think G4 has a schedule update soon. I am curious to see what their summer flying will look like.

If not announced tomorrow, I would think it would come in early November...

Jshank83 wrote:

Here is a link to the fleet size projected by aircraft through the end of 2018 by qtr.

So the two 757s will be gone by years-end. What routes are they currently flying? Is there an exact date for retirement?


MD-80s---will last hub be SFB or LAS?

727LOVER wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

Here is a link to the fleet size projected by aircraft through the end of 2018 by qtr.

So the two 757s will be gone by years-end. What routes are they currently flying? Is there an exact date for retirement?

LAS-HNL is their main route. I am guessing they might fly a couple others also. I know the HNL route ends when they retire. G4 flies its last HNL route on Saturday.

georgiabill wrote:

I am wondering if G4 might consider MHT? Not to end their service at PSM but to supplement it. MHT has had nonstop service on WN to both LAS and PHX in the past. I could see G4 operating 2 or 3 weekly to either destination. I could see PGD,PIE and SFD working from MHT 2Xor 3x weekly as well.

Could never realistically happen- G4 does not do overnights for aircraft or crew, one of the main points that helps their profit margin. You can't do a turn on any west coast flight from MHT.

Here are my picks for new cities that will be announced: JAN, CHS, and MOB.

dabpit wrote:

Here are my picks for new cities that will be announced: JAN, CHS, and MOB.

G4 was going to serve JAN had a SCASD grant been approved in 2014 but it fell through:

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/busi ... /16965425/

wedgetail737 wrote:

I think PAE-LAS and maybe AZA.

Doubt PAE will happen. Not enough room after AS and UA have taken slots

If they're smart they're starting bases in Providence and Newburgh-Stewart. Norwegian flies into these airports from Europe and a lot of people will want to self-transfer there further into the USA. Even if they're not an official feeder for Norwegian, they could certainly benefit from sharing these airports with them. Those are the cheapest entry points into the USA from Europe, Allegiant could distribute these people further.

ROCDLFAN wrote:

georgiabill wrote:

I am wondering if G4 might consider MHT? Not to end their service at PSM but to supplement it. MHT has had nonstop service on WN to both LAS and PHX in the past. I could see G4 operating 2 or 3 weekly to either destination. I could see PGD,PIE and SFD working from MHT 2Xor 3x weekly as well.

Could never realistically happen- G4 does not do overnights for aircraft or crew, one of the main points that helps their profit margin. You can't do a turn on any west coast flight from MHT.

They are currently testing pilot overnights on one route. There are a lot of potential routes that cannot be done with one crew if any delay occurs. The plan is to utilize the same flight attendants and swap the pilots out during the turn. This would allow them to do longer flights, like east coast to LAS.

nws2002 wrote:

ROCDLFAN wrote:

georgiabill wrote:

I am wondering if G4 might consider MHT? Not to end their service at PSM but to supplement it. MHT has had nonstop service on WN to both LAS and PHX in the past. I could see G4 operating 2 or 3 weekly to either destination. I could see PGD,PIE and SFD working from MHT 2Xor 3x weekly as well.

Could never realistically happen- G4 does not do overnights for aircraft or crew, one of the main points that helps their profit margin. You can't do a turn on any west coast flight from MHT.

They are currently testing pilot overnights on one route. There are a lot of potential routes that cannot be done with one crew if any delay occurs. The plan is to utilize the same flight attendants and swap the pilots out during the turn. This would allow them to do longer flights, like east coast to LAS.

PIE-IWA is a test flight for the Coast to Coast flight.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

If they're smart they're starting bases in Providence and Newburgh-Stewart. Norwegian flies into these airports from Europe and a lot of people will want to self-transfer there further into the USA. Even if they're not an official feeder for Norwegian, they could certainly benefit from sharing these airports with them. Those are the cheapest entry points into the USA from Europe, Allegiant could distribute these people further.

I second the idea! Norwegian a year ago or so was looking to partner up with an LCC in Europe and in the US. They were looking at Ryanair or Easyjet across the pond and looking into Southwest, Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant in the states. I never did read or hear about the outcome of the study. They could create a new alliance like Star Alliance/SkyTeam but have all LCC carriers.

Jshank83 wrote:

Allegiant's CEO said today they are retiring all their MDs by the end of 2018 now. A year earlier than expected. Good to hear.

Here is a link to the fleet size projected by aircraft through the end of 2018 by qtr.

https://twitter.com/ghimlay/status/923285191153586176

Wow. Down 20 planes between the middle and end of 2018?? That's quite the change.