Coming up... everyone saying that SY should open a hub at their local airport.

The US has no ULCCs even approaching the size of the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet in Europe, a comparable sized aviation market. The combined fleet of NK/G4/F9 is about half that of FR alone. There's plenty of room in the US market for another ULCC.

Lol, wake up and pay attention yo.

ty97 wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

TVNWZ wrote:

When I check them out for a flight they are often just a little higher than other airlines on my routes. A lot of the time two checked bags higher.

For you, yes...for others, no...and there seem to be a lot of others...hence the huge profits.

OT: There are a lot of cattle that go to Southwest.com assuming they are getting the best deal and booking without shopping around. Southwest spent years conditioning their clientele to do this and then, when the Pavlovian response was instilled, wisely raised their prices while continuing to the heavily advertise 'bags flag free' to keep their passenger base from shopping around and to avoid losing potential bag revenue by pricing bags in. This is why Southwest actively blocks their fares from appearing on other sites.

Brilliant business move by Southwest, really. And sure, there are still some cases where they are cheaper, but when I search them (and I do often, to compare) they are almost never cheaper for my searches. More often than that, I find them to be priced equivalently to the majors (as someone who usually does not check bags this is a wash for me), sometimes pricier, occasionally cheaper though rarely by much.

This doesn't make Southwest bad, of course. They are a fine airline and a smart business. But the 'low fares' Southwest of old is mostly gone. A lot of Southwest fliers just don't know that.

And as always, YMMV.

One point to remember about Southwest...when they enter a market, they often cause overall fares to drop. Sure, they may not be cheaper than the other majors because...the other majors have lowered their prices to match Southwest. The point is, fares might be higher if Southwest weren't in a market. Now, are they sometimes more expensive than others? Sure, that happens. And people probably have been conditioned a bit. But they have a different route model as well that may work out better for some customers.

Southwest doesn't block fares from other sites just because they're higher. In most cases, they're comparable. They've never had their fares on other sites, or interlined, etc.

Saying that passengers are deluding themselves because of free bags, when NK or F9 with their fees end up being comparable, cuts both ways. Then why fly F9 or NK when you can get more frequency, more seat space, more reliability and better service from WN for the same price? Who's being irrational?

Very sad to hear however it was inevitable, SY lost alot of cash last year. When they fired there CEO I knew that they are obviously looking to move in a new direction. I do not know how they are going to compete. If they want to be the next low-cost carrier good luck.

I wouldnt mind them expanding its midwest routes and coming into MKE and flying to LAX and SFO. Our west cost flights are terrible. I think MKE would be a safe market.

In a realistic side I could see WN eyeing SY up. Airline with a common aircraft and it would give WN a huge presence at MSP. But I do not want this to happen!!!!

cschleic wrote:

ty97 wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

For you, yes...for others, no...and there seem to be a lot of others...hence the huge profits.

OT: There are a lot of cattle that go to Southwest.com assuming they are getting the best deal and booking without shopping around. Southwest spent years conditioning their clientele to do this and then, when the Pavlovian response was instilled, wisely raised their prices while continuing to the heavily advertise 'bags flag free' to keep their passenger base from shopping around and to avoid losing potential bag revenue by pricing bags in. This is why Southwest actively blocks their fares from appearing on other sites.

Brilliant business move by Southwest, really. And sure, there are still some cases where they are cheaper, but when I search them (and I do often, to compare) they are almost never cheaper for my searches. More often than that, I find them to be priced equivalently to the majors (as someone who usually does not check bags this is a wash for me), sometimes pricier, occasionally cheaper though rarely by much.

This doesn't make Southwest bad, of course. They are a fine airline and a smart business. But the 'low fares' Southwest of old is mostly gone. A lot of Southwest fliers just don't know that.

And as always, YMMV.

One point to remember about Southwest...when they enter a market, they often cause overall fares to drop. Sure, they may not be cheaper than the other majors because...the other majors have lowered their prices to match Southwest. The point is, fares might be higher if Southwest weren't in a market. Now, are they sometimes more expensive than others? Sure, that happens. And people probably have been conditioned a bit. But they have a different route model as well that may work out better for some customers.

Southwest doesn't block fares from other sites just because they're higher. In most cases, they're comparable. They've never had their fares on other sites, or interlined, etc.

Saying that passengers are deluding themselves because of free bags, when NK or F9 with their fees end up being comparable, cuts both ways. Then why fly F9 or NK when you can get more frequency, more seat space, more reliability and better service from WN for the same price? Who's being irrational?

Not to start a huge argument off-topic, but hasn't the theory of Southwest lowering fares when it enters a market been debunked?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/c ... t/9273899/

sunking737 wrote:

They are getting 5 more planes for the 2017/2018 winter season. The talk of added seats is just talk for now. Remember talk is cheap. I still have a wait and see attitude. They have a good bunch charters in and out of IFP. two planes just for that. A 737-700 that is based there and a 737-800 that departs MSP early every morning, stops at a city, goes to IFP turns goes to another city, and returns back to MSP at night.

Are the five planes from transavia again? If so, that's the same every winter. Or is it five beyond that?

MIflyer12 wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

What happens to the approx. 25-40 flights per day by SY out of MSP (depending on time of year)? If many or even some go away, DL will raise fares. SY is good competition to DL.

SY may be good competition to DL at MSP but it isn't successful in numbers. It doesn't even make the top 5 operating carriers by domestic passenger count at MSP -- and that's without DL Connection, United Express, and American Eagle being aggregated. AA (even mainline only) and WN are ahead of SY at MSP.

When you say SY is not top five in passenger count for MSP, this says otherwise. Am I misinterpreting what you were saying?

https://metroairports.org/mspreports/op ... _2017.xlsx

What if SY looks at building Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport. It's not Las Vegas but is a nice area to visit.

b747400erf wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

Are the owners of SY going to allow it?

I always thought they should get some EMB-175's and hit smaller markets from MSP like BOI, COS, or RNO, and do an Icelandair like hub strategy. Probably a completely stupid idea, but I'm full of those.

They could call it Midwest Express!

It would be the quickest way to bring back Midwest Express for sure.

stlgph wrote:

Let's be real.

Does the U.S. need another bottom feeding airline? No
Will it work? Yes
Does it matter they've been "stuck" in MSP all these years? No
Are we sad to see it change? Yes
Will it be better off for Sun Country? Yes.

Sums up my thoughts very well. Let's face it. What SY has been doing for years and years isn't working. It's only been successful at survival, not building a successful airline. They need a new direction, and it doesn't matter what. If it's LCC or ULCC, fine--make the change. Their current business model has been inadequate for far too long. They need to cut costs, move beyond MSP, and build a smarter network. I'm definitely in favor of the new CEO's proposal.

MSPNWA wrote:

stlgph wrote:

Let's be real.

Does the U.S. need another bottom feeding airline? No
Will it work? Yes
Does it matter they've been "stuck" in MSP all these years? No
Are we sad to see it change? Yes
Will it be better off for Sun Country? Yes.

Sums up my thoughts very well. Let's face it. What SY has been doing for years and years isn't working. It's only been successful at survival, not building a successful airline. They need a new direction, and it doesn't matter what. If it's LCC or ULCC, fine--make the change. Their current business model has been inadequate for far too long. They need to cut costs, move beyond MSP, and build a smarter network. I'm definitely in favor of the new CEO's proposal.

I think where loyal flyers are losing their minds will be the "charging for carry ons." I think they (loyal flyers) could accept seat assignment charges and less seat room, so SY could cram another row of seats in there, and perhaps adoption of "basic economy" fares, with most people would say "O-K," even if a bit hesitant to that.

However, it sounds like Bricker is tossing everything out the window and becoming Allegiant 2. That's all he knows and with Sun Country, since they are heavily focused on vacation package sales, a la Allegiant, that's what we're going to end up with.

Some people see it as a way to save money and still take a vacation. Some people, like me, see it as a miserable flying experience.

Thanks Jude Bricker.

MSPNWA wrote:

Sums up my thoughts very well. Let's face it. What SY has been doing for years and years isn't working. It's only been successful at survival, not building a successful airline. They need a new direction, and it doesn't matter what. If it's LCC or ULCC, fine--make the change. Their current business model has been inadequate for far too long. They need to cut costs, move beyond MSP, and build a smarter network. I'm definitely in favor of the new CEO's proposal.

I don't think many people are seriously arguing the point that what Sun Country has been doing hasn't been particularly successful. I think the question many, including myself, are raising is more as to whether or not this latest change will be particularly successful, either. Personally, I remain skeptical.

flyguy89 wrote:

The US has no ULCCs even approaching the size of the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet in Europe, a comparable sized aviation market. The combined fleet of NK/G4/F9 is about half that of FR alone. There's plenty of room in the US market for another ULCC.

FR has a lot more to work with than the US. European legacies are still tied to their individual countries. The only airlines that could effectively leverage ECAA flight freedoms were LCCs. Whenever a legacy tried launching routes that didn't involve their home country, they failed. In Europe LCCs are the only airlines capable of running point to point routes outside of their home country.

The US doesn't have this issue. There aren't situations (ironically outside of SY) where you have airlines that only fly to and from a certain state or city. Legacies in the US have a much stronger and more comprehensive network in the US than legacies in the EU which are still tied back to their home countries. As a result, the opportunities for LCCs isn't quite as strong in the US.

I think a merger between SY and AS is highly likely, AS has expanded pretty fairly at MSP in the last few years and SY operates the same equipment type without the need of cross fleet training.

klakzky123 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

The US has no ULCCs even approaching the size of the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet in Europe, a comparable sized aviation market. The combined fleet of NK/G4/F9 is about half that of FR alone. There's plenty of room in the US market for another ULCC.

FR has a lot more to work with than the US. European legacies are still tied to their individual countries. The only airlines that could effectively leverage ECAA flight freedoms were LCCs. Whenever a legacy tried launching routes that didn't involve their home country, they failed. In Europe LCCs are the only airlines capable of running point to point routes outside of their home country.

The US doesn't have this issue. There aren't situations (ironically outside of SY) where you have airlines that only fly to and from a certain state or city. Legacies in the US have a much stronger and more comprehensive network in the US than legacies in the EU which are still tied back to their home countries. As a result, the opportunities for LCCs isn't quite as strong in the US.

Also he is ignoring WN. The combined U2/FR fleet is still ~100 frames smaller than WN's (and yeah, we won't even go into the size of the EU's airlines intra-European fleets versus their US3 counterparts). Southwest may not be an ULCC, but they still soak up a lot of the low cost travel in the US and is still someone the ULCCs have to compete with.

SteveXC500 wrote:

Someone with good skills should create the route map of SY/WN. Eliminate DFW for DAL. Eliminate any airports SY flies to which WN does not (maybe move it to something close - i.e. JFK to LGA). It would look nice.

Why on Earth would WN have any interest in acquiring a leisure & charter-orientated airline largely concentrated amongst one market? Especially given its labor cost will rise to WN rates.

klakzky123 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

The US has no ULCCs even approaching the size of the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet in Europe, a comparable sized aviation market. The combined fleet of NK/G4/F9 is about half that of FR alone. There's plenty of room in the US market for another ULCC.

FR has a lot more to work with than the US. European legacies are still tied to their individual countries. The only airlines that could effectively leverage ECAA flight freedoms were LCCs. Whenever a legacy tried launching routes that didn't involve their home country, they failed. In Europe LCCs are the only airlines capable of running point to point routes outside of their home country.

That's not true at all. Ever heard of Air France_KLM and LH/OS/SN/LX or BA/IB? Brands may still be tied to home countries, but the EU legacies themselves have been exploiting the ECAA for almost as long as Ryanair and Easyjet.

Polot wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

The US has no ULCCs even approaching the size of the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet in Europe, a comparable sized aviation market. The combined fleet of NK/G4/F9 is about half that of FR alone. There's plenty of room in the US market for another ULCC.

FR has a lot more to work with than the US. European legacies are still tied to their individual countries. The only airlines that could effectively leverage ECAA flight freedoms were LCCs. Whenever a legacy tried launching routes that didn't involve their home country, they failed. In Europe LCCs are the only airlines capable of running point to point routes outside of their home country.

The US doesn't have this issue. There aren't situations (ironically outside of SY) where you have airlines that only fly to and from a certain state or city. Legacies in the US have a much stronger and more comprehensive network in the US than legacies in the EU which are still tied back to their home countries. As a result, the opportunities for LCCs isn't quite as strong in the US.

Also he is ignoring WN. The combined U2/FR fleet is still ~100 frames smaller than WN's (and yeah, we won't even go into the size of the EU's airlines intra-European fleets versus their US3 counterparts). Southwest may not be an ULCC, but they still soak up a lot of the low cost travel in the US and is still someone the ULCCs have to compete with.

Southwest is neither a ULCC nor has it even been an LCC for a while now with average fares and RASM on par with "legacy" carriers.

flyguy89 wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

The US has no ULCCs even approaching the size of the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet in Europe, a comparable sized aviation market. The combined fleet of NK/G4/F9 is about half that of FR alone. There's plenty of room in the US market for another ULCC.

FR has a lot more to work with than the US. European legacies are still tied to their individual countries. The only airlines that could effectively leverage ECAA flight freedoms were LCCs. Whenever a legacy tried launching routes that didn't involve their home country, they failed. In Europe LCCs are the only airlines capable of running point to point routes outside of their home country.

That's not true at all. Ever heard of Air France_KLM and LH/OS/SN/LX or BA/IB? Brands may still be tied to home countries, but the EU legacies themselves have been exploiting the ECAA for almost as long as Ryanair and Easyjet.

Polot wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

FR has a lot more to work with than the US. European legacies are still tied to their individual countries. The only airlines that could effectively leverage ECAA flight freedoms were LCCs. Whenever a legacy tried launching routes that didn't involve their home country, they failed. In Europe LCCs are the only airlines capable of running point to point routes outside of their home country.

The US doesn't have this issue. There aren't situations (ironically outside of SY) where you have airlines that only fly to and from a certain state or city. Legacies in the US have a much stronger and more comprehensive network in the US than legacies in the EU which are still tied back to their home countries. As a result, the opportunities for LCCs isn't quite as strong in the US.

Also he is ignoring WN. The combined U2/FR fleet is still ~100 frames smaller than WN's (and yeah, we won't even go into the size of the EU's airlines intra-European fleets versus their US3 counterparts). Southwest may not be an ULCC, but they still soak up a lot of the low cost travel in the US and is still someone the ULCCs have to compete with.

Southwest is neither a ULCC nor has it even been an LCC for a while now with average fares and RASM on par with "legacy" carriers.

What European legacy is flying point to point from outside their home country? All of them just connect back to their hubs in their home country. Ryanair runs point to point within other countries and between European countries that they dont have an AOC in. That is 100% different than the Legacies.

The equivalent would be if DL only ran connections to from within the US to Atlanta and didn't have any other hubs in other states. As I said, SY is one of the few airlines that operates that way in the US. The Legacies have hubs and focus cities throughout the US. And in DL's case they actually run a small amount of point to point in addition to hub/focus city flights. That's a massive difference from European legacies.

klakzky123 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

FR has a lot more to work with than the US. European legacies are still tied to their individual countries. The only airlines that could effectively leverage ECAA flight freedoms were LCCs. Whenever a legacy tried launching routes that didn't involve their home country, they failed. In Europe LCCs are the only airlines capable of running point to point routes outside of their home country.

That's not true at all. Ever heard of Air France_KLM and LH/OS/SN/LX or BA/IB? Brands may still be tied to home countries, but the EU legacies themselves have been exploiting the ECAA for almost as long as Ryanair and Easyjet.

Polot wrote:

Also he is ignoring WN. The combined U2/FR fleet is still ~100 frames smaller than WN's (and yeah, we won't even go into the size of the EU's airlines intra-European fleets versus their US3 counterparts). Southwest may not be an ULCC, but they still soak up a lot of the low cost travel in the US and is still someone the ULCCs have to compete with.

Southwest is neither a ULCC nor has it even been an LCC for a while now with average fares and RASM on par with "legacy" carriers.

What European legacy is flying point to point from outside their home country?

And how much point-to-point fly do American legacies do outside of their hubs? Almost none or very little.

klakzy123 wrote:

The equivalent would be if DL only ran connections to from within the US to Atlanta and didn't have any other hubs in other states. As I said, SY is one of the few airlines that operates that way in the US. The Legacies have hubs and focus cities throughout the US.

But that isn't the case. EU legacy carriers indeed do operate hubs and focus cities across Europe. Again, brands remain rooted to home countries, but not the airlines themselves.
- IAG: LHR, MAD, BCN, DUB
- AF/KL: CDG, AMS, LYS, BOD, MRS
- LH: FRA, MUC, VIE, BRU, ZRH

flyguy89 wrote:

Southwest is neither a ULCC nor has it even been an LCC for a while now with average fares and RASM on par with "legacy" carriers.

You might want to compare CASM now vs 20 years ago and see who moved closer to whom.

stlgph wrote:

I think where loyal flyers are losing their minds will be the "charging for carry ons." I think they (loyal flyers) could accept seat assignment charges and less seat room, so SY could cram another row of seats in there, and perhaps adoption of "basic economy" fares, with most people would say "O-K," even if a bit hesitant to that.

However, it sounds like Bricker is tossing everything out the window and becoming Allegiant 2. That's all he knows and with Sun Country, since they are heavily focused on vacation package sales, a la Allegiant, that's what we're going to end up with.

Some people see it as a way to save money and still take a vacation. Some people, like me, see it as a miserable flying experience.

Thanks Jude Bricker.

Just adding a row or two of seats isn't enough. The change needs to be much larger. It needs a blow-up like the proposal.

Avoid SY if they change. But clearly the ULCC model works for many people. Look at how much more G4 has grown than SY during Bricker's time at G4. Clearly he helped do much more with G4 than SY could do. Here's the bottom line: SY's legacy-lite business model is nice and all for passengers, but it doesn't do a hill of good if it can't compete in the marketplace. You can't give customers that good service if you're not an option in the first place. So yes, thank you Bricker for bringing more value to customers.

commavia wrote:

I don't think many people are seriously arguing the point that what Sun Country has been doing hasn't been particularly successful. I think the question many, including myself, are raising is more as to whether or not this latest change will be particularly successful, either. Personally, I remain skeptical.

So what do you think would be a better idea? How is a point-to-point legacy-lite model going to work anywhere in today's environment? Why do you believe it won't be successful when the most successful small airlines over the past 10-15 years have been using that model and continue to grow? Not believing in it simply because you dislike the product isn't a valid reason.

compensateme wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

Someone with good skills should create the route map of SY/WN. Eliminate DFW for DAL. Eliminate any airports SY flies to which WN does not (maybe move it to something close - i.e. JFK to LGA). It would look nice.

Why on Earth would WN have any interest in acquiring a leisure & charter-orientated airline largely concentrated amongst one market? Especially given its labor cost will rise to WN rates.

I must have missed the part where I said they actually would. Read a few posts earlier on and I actually believe they won't. What I DID say was, the route map, from a WN at MSP perspective would be quite nice to see. Thanks.

How do you figure Sun Country isn't an option? They're chugging along minding their own business. They seem to be a viable option for many people. You don't have to be the biggest and the best to compete. That's a silly notion across this website.

So yes, 28 seat pitch, charging for carry ons, yep, buying out your staff, that's screaming value for the customer. Keep 'em coming, this should be good.

stlgph wrote:

How do you figure Sun Country isn't an option? They're chugging along minding their own business. They seem to be a viable option for many people. You don't have to be the biggest and the best to compete. That's a silly notion across this website.

So yes, 28 seat pitch, charging for carry ons, yep, buying out your staff, that's screaming value for the customer. Keep 'em coming, this should be good.

The percentage of the flying public that has an option to fly SY is minuscule, even for those at MSP. They're simply not an option except for a select few routes. Their "value" is extremely limited and is dwarfed by the value the public sees in G4.

MSPNWA wrote:

The percentage of the flying public that has an option to fly SY is minuscule, even for those at MSP. They're simply not an option except for a select few routes. Their "value" is extremely limited and is dwarfed by the value the public sees in G4.

I'd hardly consider 900K enplanements at MSP to be "minuscule."

compensateme wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

The percentage of the flying public that has an option to fly SY is minuscule, even for those at MSP. They're simply not an option except for a select few routes. Their "value" is extremely limited and is dwarfed by the value the public sees in G4.

I'd hardly consider 900K enplanements at MSP to be "minuscule."

They are not and never will be Delta from a scale standpoint at MSP (or anywhere). So let's not compare the number of passengers or routes. I know MSPNWA did not outright say that, but a lot of the comments I have read in the past couple days seem to infer...and let's face it, DL and SY do compete on some routes. But, I know a TON of people locally who will only fly SY. 900K is not minuscule indeed.

compensateme wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

Someone with good skills should create the route map of SY/WN. Eliminate DFW for DAL. Eliminate any airports SY flies to which WN does not (maybe move it to something close - i.e. JFK to LGA). It would look nice.

Why on Earth would WN have any interest in acquiring a leisure & charter-orientated airline largely concentrated amongst one market? Especially given its labor cost will rise to WN rates.

If SY really does change strategies to a network carrier and gains some mass, WN may like to gobble them up. Air Tran is the best example.

As someone who works for SY and who heard Jude speak for 30 minutes about his plan I can unequivocally say that article is misrepresentating what SY's plans are. NK, F9 2.0 is not where things are going.

I'm not going to elaborate on details for obvious reasons and personally, after hearing where things are headed, I'm excited for our future.

TWA772LR wrote:

compensateme wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

Someone with good skills should create the route map of SY/WN. Eliminate DFW for DAL. Eliminate any airports SY flies to which WN does not (maybe move it to something close - i.e. JFK to LGA). It would look nice.

Why on Earth would WN have any interest in acquiring a leisure & charter-orientated airline largely concentrated amongst one market? Especially given its labor cost will rise to WN rates.

If SY really does change strategies to a network carrier and gains some mass, WN may like to gobble them up. Air Tran is the best example.

For the love of God -
1) No one is going to buy SY. All their planes are leased, T2 MSP is common-use, and they have no valuable assets like DCA or LGA slots.If someone wanted SY's markets, they could just do it themselves through organic growth.
2) SY is NOT losing money. They made 16 million dollars last year and have been profitable every month this year - the owners just are not happy with the return on investment they are getting. The previous CEO (Mr. Erani) was replaced because he did not know anything about running an airline - his background was in the greeting card industry (I really can't explain why he was hired in the first place).

stlgph wrote:

However, it sounds like Bricker is tossing everything out the window and becoming Allegiant 2. That's all he knows

To be accurate, Bricker started his industry career in AA's finance department in 2004. He moved to Allegiant two years later.

But starting just before 2004, AA started a period of cost cuts (job cuts, capacity cuts, adding seats, etc). That first experience in the industry also would have shaped his views.

usflyer msp wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

compensateme wrote:

Why on Earth would WN have any interest in acquiring a leisure & charter-orientated airline largely concentrated amongst one market? Especially given its labor cost will rise to WN rates.

If SY really does change strategies to a network carrier and gains some mass, WN may like to gobble them up. Air Tran is the best example.

For the love of God -
1) No one is going to buy SY. All their planes are leased, T2 MSP is common-use, and they have no valuable assets like DCA or LGA slots.If someone wanted SY's markets, they could just do it themselves through organic growth.
2) SY is NOT losing money. They made 16 million dollars last year and have been profitable every month this year - the owners just are not happy with the return on investment they are getting. The previous CEO (Mr. Erani) was replaced because he did not know anything about running an airline - his background was in the greeting card industry (I really can't explain why he was hired in the first place).

All of that is true at this very second. But, if they do change their strategy (which would involve operating (read: owning) more airplanes), IN THE NEXT DECADE, they could be a viable target for WN. A lot of VXs planes are leased, didn't stop AS from overpaying for them. See the keywords there?

N0dak wrote:

As someone who works for SY and who heard Jude speak for 30 minutes about his plan I can unequivocally say that article is misrepresentating what SY's plans are. NK, F9 2.0 is not where things are going.

I'm not going to elaborate on details for obvious reasons and personally, after hearing where things are headed, I'm excited for our future.

okay, Mr or Mrs SY worker (with full respect) - not F9 2.0 ? Riddle me this, will the first class cabin still exist 1 year from now?

Gracias.

And, SY isn't going to tell you they want to be bought. I'm not saying they do, but this is another way companies ready themselves to be bought.

As always the flying public are going to start to complain (I would use a stronger word that describes female dogs but I don't want to be banned) incessantly. Guess what: You didn't want to pay higher price for higher quality, now you are getting what you wanted! It honestly makes me sad to see flying become such a miserable experience only because of the stupid flying public.

compensateme wrote:

I'd hardly consider 900K enplanements at MSP to be "minuscule."

The definition is "very small". SY is only about 6% of MSP traffic, below even AA and almost below WN. That's small. Not going to debate with you about the level of smallness.

A couple years, then they go bye bye. Too small/narrowed network basically only out of MSP with too few aircraft. Nowhere near what NK, F9, and G4 are.

N0dak wrote:

As someone who works for SY and who heard Jude speak for 30 minutes about his plan I can unequivocally say that article is misrepresentating what SY's plans are. NK, F9 2.0 is not where things are going.

I'm not going to elaborate on details for obvious reasons and personally, after hearing where things are headed, I'm excited for our future.

Well I sure hope not. This is encouraging to hear, but it wouldn't be the first time executive management reassured its employees of something and then did the opposite. I just can't see how going from one of the best domestic products in the US to charging for carry on bags is going to be acceptable to their current loyal customers.

It is glad to see that so many people care about the smallest mainline airline in the US. Getting away from debating about whether or not they'll be a ULCC or LCC, what new destinations, focus cities, or hubs do you think they'll open in the future? They've tried some..interesting..routes in the the past (For example, a one stop flight to London from MSP on a 737).

TWA772LR wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

If SY really does change strategies to a network carrier and gains some mass, WN may like to gobble them up. Air Tran is the best example.

For the love of God -
1) No one is going to buy SY. All their planes are leased, T2 MSP is common-use, and they have no valuable assets like DCA or LGA slots.If someone wanted SY's markets, they could just do it themselves through organic growth.
2) SY is NOT losing money. They made 16 million dollars last year and have been profitable every month this year - the owners just are not happy with the return on investment they are getting. The previous CEO (Mr. Erani) was replaced because he did not know anything about running an airline - his background was in the greeting card industry (I really can't explain why he was hired in the first place).

All of that is true at this very second. But, if they do change their strategy (which would involve operating (read: owning) more airplanes), IN THE NEXT DECADE, they could be a viable target for WN. A lot of VXs planes are leased, didn't stop AS from overpaying for them. See the keywords there?

Lots of quotes embedded here, but folks need to move away from the concept that owning aircraft, terminal/gate space, etc. really determines the valuation of an airline. Valuations are much more dependent on cash flow generation. Simply owning an airplane doesn't necessarily make the airline itself more valuable. You have to be able to generate cash from the asset, and enough cash to cover operating expenses + financing expenses. What IS helpful is having owned, unencumbered airplanes, that can be either liquidated 100% for cash or used as collateral for debt if/when the company needed cash at a future date.

As noted above, VX rented nearly everything and still fetched a substaintial sale price -- the valuation that the public market put on VX was related to its earnings, not its asset ownership. Alaska then paid a high premium compared to how the public market valued Virgin.

Look at what Indigo Partners did with Spirit, and is doing with Frontier - they lease nearly everything. Yet when the time comes to either IPO or sell Frontier, they will be paid handsomely, just like they were for Spirit - because the core business generates good cash flows.

TWA772LR wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

If SY really does change strategies to a network carrier and gains some mass, WN may like to gobble them up. Air Tran is the best example.

For the love of God -
1) No one is going to buy SY. All their planes are leased, T2 MSP is common-use, and they have no valuable assets like DCA or LGA slots.If someone wanted SY's markets, they could just do it themselves through organic growth.
2) SY is NOT losing money. They made 16 million dollars last year and have been profitable every month this year - the owners just are not happy with the return on investment they are getting. The previous CEO (Mr. Erani) was replaced because he did not know anything about running an airline - his background was in the greeting card industry (I really can't explain why he was hired in the first place).

All of that is true at this very second. But, if they do change their strategy (which would involve operating (read: owning) more airplanes), IN THE NEXT DECADE, they could be a viable target for WN. A lot of VXs planes are leased, didn't stop AS from overpaying for them. See the keywords there?

I understand what you're saying, and your point is valid. The distinction for the VX/AS deal however is that AS acquired a much larger presence in an already congested and gate constrained LAX and SFO- something they could not achieve organically to become a larger west coast competitor. What SY has (a small MSP hub) is something WN can already achieve on its own without the expensive acquisition of Sun Country. Especially with the hundreds of aircraft they already have. In addition, Sun Country's gates at MSP are common use gates, as are Southwest's. If WN wanted to add additional service, they could at anytime provided that they time the flights for when gates are available in the Humphrey Terminal.

flymco753 wrote:

I think a merger between SY and AS is highly likely, AS has expanded pretty fairly at MSP in the last few years and SY operates the same equipment type without the need of cross fleet training.

What is in it for AS besides taking a butt-whooping from DL in MSP?

TWA772LR wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

If SY really does change strategies to a network carrier and gains some mass, WN may like to gobble them up. Air Tran is the best example.

For the love of God -
1) No one is going to buy SY. All their planes are leased, T2 MSP is common-use, and they have no valuable assets like DCA or LGA slots.If someone wanted SY's markets, they could just do it themselves through organic growth.
2) SY is NOT losing money. They made 16 million dollars last year and have been profitable every month this year - the owners just are not happy with the return on investment they are getting. The previous CEO (Mr. Erani) was replaced because he did not know anything about running an airline - his background was in the greeting card industry (I really can't explain why he was hired in the first place).

All of that is true at this very second. But, if they do change their strategy (which would involve operating (read: owning) more airplanes), IN THE NEXT DECADE, they could be a viable target for WN. A lot of VXs planes are leased, didn't stop AS from overpaying for them. See the keywords there?

There is no clear correlation between what SY has to offer and what VX had to offer. VX had a decent FF base, desirable real estate in LAX and SFO, and also was a good fit for a few carriers, creating a bidding war. SY has none of that really.

SteveXC500 wrote:

And, SY isn't going to tell you they want to be bought. I'm not saying they do, but this is another way companies ready themselves to be bought.

A carrier like SY probably has an invisible for sale sign up just by being a tiny carrier in the big legacy ocean.

FlyHappy wrote:

okay, Mr or Mrs SY worker (with full respect) - not F9 2.0 ? Riddle me this, will the first class cabin still exist 1 year from now?

Gracias.

That's Mr. SY worker to you... I'm not a spokesperson, I really don't want to speak to details. I just wanted to add the situation as I've experienced it.

AWACSooner wrote:

TVNWZ wrote:

You can not afford to leave money on the table.

And yet, WN continues to turn profitable quarter after profitable quarter while somehow allowing two free checked bags.

There is a big difference in Sun Country and Southwest. Just because Southwest does not charge for bags is not because they don't want to. Its because they could not do it with their reservation system. Now that they have a new system, look for more opportunities for them to get a return on their investment.

I also want to mention, people who and use the term Nickle and Dime, are people who want to keep air travel in the Pre- Historic world or travel. The fact is passengers talk with their wallets looking for the lowest price.

khinstorff wrote:

cschleic wrote:

ty97 wrote:

OT: There are a lot of cattle that go to Southwest.com assuming they are getting the best deal and booking without shopping around. Southwest spent years conditioning their clientele to do this and then, when the Pavlovian response was instilled, wisely raised their prices while continuing to the heavily advertise 'bags flag free' to keep their passenger base from shopping around and to avoid losing potential bag revenue by pricing bags in. This is why Southwest actively blocks their fares from appearing on other sites.

Brilliant business move by Southwest, really. And sure, there are still some cases where they are cheaper, but when I search them (and I do often, to compare) they are almost never cheaper for my searches. More often than that, I find them to be priced equivalently to the majors (as someone who usually does not check bags this is a wash for me), sometimes pricier, occasionally cheaper though rarely by much.

This doesn't make Southwest bad, of course. They are a fine airline and a smart business. But the 'low fares' Southwest of old is mostly gone. A lot of Southwest fliers just don't know that.

And as always, YMMV.

One point to remember about Southwest...when they enter a market, they often cause overall fares to drop. Sure, they may not be cheaper than the other majors because...the other majors have lowered their prices to match Southwest. The point is, fares might be higher if Southwest weren't in a market. Now, are they sometimes more expensive than others? Sure, that happens. And people probably have been conditioned a bit. But they have a different route model as well that may work out better for some customers.

Southwest doesn't block fares from other sites just because they're higher. In most cases, they're comparable. They've never had their fares on other sites, or interlined, etc.

Saying that passengers are deluding themselves because of free bags, when NK or F9 with their fees end up being comparable, cuts both ways. Then why fly F9 or NK when you can get more frequency, more seat space, more reliability and better service from WN for the same price? Who's being irrational?

Not to start a huge argument off-topic, but hasn't the theory of Southwest lowering fares when it enters a market been debunked?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/c ... t/9273899/

Interesting perspective, thanks for the link.

usflyer msp wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

compensateme wrote:

Why on Earth would WN have any interest in acquiring a leisure & charter-orientated airline largely concentrated amongst one market? Especially given its labor cost will rise to WN rates.

If SY really does change strategies to a network carrier and gains some mass, WN may like to gobble them up. Air Tran is the best example.

For the love of God -
1) No one is going to buy SY. All their planes are leased, T2 MSP is common-use, and they have no valuable assets like DCA or LGA slots.If someone wanted SY's markets, they could just do it themselves through organic growth.
2) SY is NOT losing money. They made 16 million dollars last year and have been profitable every month this year - the owners just are not happy with the return on investment they are getting. The previous CEO (Mr. Erani) was replaced because he did not know anything about running an airline - his background was in the greeting card industry (I really can't explain why he was hired in the first place).

This is a.net after all...mergers always make sense and fleet commonality is the number one reason.

eastalt wrote:

There is a big difference in Sun Country and Southwest. Just because Southwest does not charge for bags is not because they don't want to. Its because they could not do it with their reservation system. Now that they have a new system, look for more opportunities for them to get a return on their investment.

I also want to mention, people who and use the term Nickle and Dime, are people who want to keep air travel in the Pre- Historic world or travel. The fact is passengers talk with their wallets looking for the lowest price.

If WN wanted to charge for bags, but was limited due to system issues, then they obviously would've found a way to do it years ago AFTER everyone else jumped on that bandwagon. But they see this as a differentiator between them and the rest of the industry...and somehow still rake money hand over fist each quarter.

lavalampluva wrote:

SY lost quite a lot money last year. Then they fired the CEO and brought in a new one. With the strategy above I can't see it working out for them. Airlines are obsessed with fees and nickel-and-diming passengers. But if they prove me wrong I will admit that I was wrong.

Maybe a merger with AS (similar fleet)?

AS took a hard look at SY before purchasing VX.

AWACSooner wrote:

eastalt wrote:

There is a big difference in Sun Country and Southwest. Just because Southwest does not charge for bags is not because they don't want to. Its because they could not do it with their reservation system. Now that they have a new system, look for more opportunities for them to get a return on their investment.

I also want to mention, people who and use the term Nickle and Dime, are people who want to keep air travel in the Pre- Historic world or travel. The fact is passengers talk with their wallets looking for the lowest price.

If WN wanted to charge for bags, but was limited due to system issues, then they obviously would've found a way to do it years ago AFTER everyone else jumped on that bandwagon. But they see this as a differentiator between them and the rest of the industry...and somehow still rake money hand over fist each quarter.

WN's reservation system is fully capable of handling bag charges, and the old system could handle ancillary charges too (and did on a regular basis). I know the "WN didn't have the capability" beat is loud on a.net, but it was not really accurate with the old system and is 100 percent false now.

i really don't think this is going to be good for MSP as I suspect they will starting moving business away from MSP into more high exposure markets but time will tell.

kcrwflyer wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

Where do we see SY expanding beyond MSP? Will their markets be places like DSM, FAR, etc. in the Midwest or do they go for larger cities lacking good flights to places like Florida and LAS, for example?

There are no larger cities lacking good flights to Florida, and you'd have to fly very far east to find any lacking LAS at this point.


I'm interested to see where this goes, however.

Flint, Grand Rapids and Lansing all lack flights to Florida and Las Vegas.

klm617 wrote:

kcrwflyer wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

Where do we see SY expanding beyond MSP? Will their markets be places like DSM, FAR, etc. in the Midwest or do they go for larger cities lacking good flights to places like Florida and LAS, for example?

There are no larger cities lacking good flights to Florida, and you'd have to fly very far east to find any lacking LAS at this point.


I'm interested to see where this goes, however.

Flint, Grand Rapids and Lansing all lack flights to Florida and Las Vegas.

GRR has Allegiant and the other two aren't "larger" cities.