It looks like F9 plans on expanding connecting options from airports besides its DEN hub. It was previously rumored that CVG would be receiving connections, but a Frontier spokesman announced today that CVG/CLE/MCO/AUS + possibly other cites "where Frontier has a large presence" would be receiving connections. This is kind of interesting, because cities such as MCO/CVG already see limited connections on F9, I wonder how "connectable" F9 plans to make these stations.

According to Frontier, these cities will be getting additional frequencies and larger planes to allow for connections. It is not clear how many passengers will be connecting, but recently CVG and CLE have been shuffling gates around, giving F9 more gates, so the carriers will have room for expansion. It also says that they are working on getting bags between connecting flights, optimizing schedules (probably some banking), and the connections will begin this Fall.

Also, an air service announcement at CLE is expected from F9 this Fall, so I would assume some of these other cities will also see new routes. Frontier also said that adding connections is their next path for growth: "It allows us to open up more opportunities for people to get where they're trying to go," said Oliver. "It's the next logical step in our business."

Here is the article: http://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2017/08/frontier_airlines_will_start_c.html

It allows for higher fleet utilization and more options for pax. It makes them really flexible and takes the pressure off DEN as their largest connecting hub, where UA has promised fire and fury.

It will be interesting to see how this works out. I'm inclined to think that this means they will now sell connections on flights that happen to work out by chance. Who knows though, F9 could try having a couple banks of flights at CLE and CVG instead? At CLE, there are more than enough available gates adjacent to their current ones for a modest expansion.

Don't they offer connections through ORD as well?

lakeeffect wrote:

It will be interesting to see how this works out. I'm inclined to think that this means they will now sell connections on flights that happen to work out by chance. Who knows though, F9 could try having a couple banks of flights at CLE and CVG instead? At CLE, there are more than enough available gates adjacent to their current ones for a modest expansion.

Does F9 bank flights? I didn't think ULCCs banked flights because that lowers fleet utilization....

Midwestindy wrote:

lakeeffect wrote:

It will be interesting to see how this works out. I'm inclined to think that this means they will now sell connections on flights that happen to work out by chance. Who knows though, F9 could try having a couple banks of flights at CLE and CVG instead? At CLE, there are more than enough available gates adjacent to their current ones for a modest expansion.

Does F9 bank flights? I didn't think ULCCs banked flights because that lowers fleet utilization....

At CVG, they banked in the sense that 3 flights come, sit for about an hour, then those 3 flights leave. This repeats continuously through out the day, so adding a 4th or 5th flight to each "rotation" could significantly increase connecting options.

Its gonna be real fun when you get stuck in one of these cities! Everything will be weather related, i can see it now.

This is what Frontier's ticket counter will look like soon at PDX with their one daily flight.

You can book BUF-MCO-CUN with a 7.5 hour layover. The 11:50pm MCO-CUN leg seems like a strange time.

I wonder if ISP will be one of them to have connections.

jbpdx wrote:

This is what Frontier's ticket counter will look like soon at PDX with their one daily flight.

Gosh, we're starting to look at winter and I remember when one daily Frontier flight DEN-PDX was a lot in winter.

mariner

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Its gonna be real fun when you get stuck in one of these cities! Everything will be weather related, i can see it now.

Seriously! F9 can't even get you to your point to point destination on time, let alone a connection. Pay 50-80 extra bucks and fly an airline that at least has the ability and desire to re-route you or send you on another carrier during Irops. F9 = high risk, low reward IMO due to their stretched point to point network.

phxa340 wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Its gonna be real fun when you get stuck in one of these cities! Everything will be weather related, i can see it now.

Seriously! F9 can't even get you to your point to point destination on time, let alone a connection. Pay 50-80 extra bucks and fly an airline that at least has the ability and desire to re-route you or send you on another carrier during Irops. F9 = high risk, low reward IMO due to their stretched point to point network.

I can't remember the last F9 flight I've had that was late, and I do fly them 4 or 5 times per year. (Not a lot I know, but they have been quite reliable for me)

I think F9 considers it a connection if they even if it has a 7 hour layover, not a very connection friendly carrier. I guess if the fare is so low, some people will do it.

RWA380 wrote:

I think F9 considers it a connection if they even if it has a 7 hour layover, not a very connection friendly carrier. I guess if the fare is so low, some people will do it.

Stl-CUN nonstop on F9 was 220 most days when I checked while STL-CUN via MCO was only 89

If the res system can price and sell the ticket then is no reason to restrict it. You can also make the through price whatever you want up to including the local fares of the individual routes.

lesfalls wrote:

I wonder if ISP will be one of them to have connections.

Did you even bother to read the article linked by the OP?

Based in Denver, the airline for years has connected passengers at Denver International Airport. As the carrier grows, Oliver said it makes sense to start connecting passengers in other cities as well, including Cleveland; Cincinnati; Orlando, Florida; Austin, Texas

The connecting cities were even alluded to in the initial post.

stl07 wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

I think F9 considers it a connection if they even if it has a 7 hour layover, not a very connection friendly carrier. I guess if the fare is so low, some people will do it.

Stl-CUN nonstop on F9 was 220 most days when I checked while STL-CUN via MCO was only 89

Too bad the CUN-MCO leg leaves at 2:20 AM. Who leaves CUN at 2 in the morning? Sounds horrible.

RWA380 wrote:

I think F9 considers it a connection if they even if it has a 7 hour layover, not a very connection friendly carrier. I guess if the fare is so low, some people will do it.

There are a bunch of overnight layovers in DEN you can buy.

RWA380 wrote:

I think F9 considers it a connection if they even if it has a 7 hour layover, not a very connection friendly carrier. I guess if the fare is so low, some people will do it.

Yeah, that is how most of their connections work currently. What is interesting is the article mentions F9 trying to create 45 min to a couple hour connection times at these airports, which is much better than the current setup. They are going to have to improve on-time stats though if this is going to work given the low frequency of their flights.

toltommy wrote:

lesfalls wrote:

I wonder if ISP will be one of them to have connections.

Did you even bother to read the article linked by the OP?

Based in Denver, the airline for years has connected passengers at Denver International Airport. As the carrier grows, Oliver said it makes sense to start connecting passengers in other cities as well, [i]including Cleveland; Cincinnati; Orlando, Florida; Austin, Texas[/i]

The connecting cities were even alluded to in the initial post.

That was not an exhaustive list - the list just includes those cities. ISP may be on their radar for connections too. Who knows.

RWA380 wrote:

I think F9 considers it a connection if they even if it has a 7 hour layover, not a very connection friendly carrier. I guess if the fare is so low, some people will do it.

As long as I've been following Frontier - twenty years - it has always been basically hub and spoke at least at DEN.

My first flight with them, in 1997, was BOS-DEN-LAX, my second flight was BOS-DEN-SFO.

It hasn't applied to every route, some of the resort and Mexican routes have been point to point, but CUN, for example, has always had a deal of connecting traffic. Certain places have a limited number of flights - PSP, for example, was 3 or 4 flights a week - and it's difficult, although not impossible, to make connections on that kind of service, but I'm reading posters who say that the west coast cities get 1 x daily or less - which they may in deep winter but they don't now. DEN-PDX, this week-end, is 3 x daily.

It often feels to me that A.net is talking about a different airline.

mariner

mariner wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

I think F9 considers it a connection if they even if it has a 7 hour layover, not a very connection friendly carrier. I guess if the fare is so low, some people will do it.

As long as I've been following Frontier - twenty years - it has always been basically hub and spoke at least at DEN.

My first flight with them, in 1997, was BOS-DEN-LAX, my second flight was BOS-DEN-SFO.

It hasn't applied to every route, some of the resort and Mexican routes have been point to point, but CUN, for example, has always had a deal of connecting traffic. Certain places have a limited number of flights - PSP, for example, was 3 or 4 flights a week - and it's difficult, although not impossible, to make connections on that kind of service, but I'm reading posters who say that the west coast cities get 1 x daily or less - which they may in deep winter but they don't now. DEN-PDX, this week-end, is 3 x daily.

It often feels to me that A.net is talking about a different airline.

mariner

Off season PDX-DEN operates once a day at 2:40pm to 6:15pm into DEN, hardly a same day connection to be had, they are useless except for PDX-DEN flying.

RWA380 wrote:

Off season PDX-DEN operates once a day at 2:40pm to 6:15pm into DEN, hardly a same day connection to be had, they are useless except for PDX-DEN flying.

I can easily remember where it didn't operate even daily in the winter. Frontier's mostly leisure traffic falls off a cliff after about Labor Day and stays that way until spring.

So I don't see the problem. If you find it inconvenient - useless - you can fly another airline.

mariner

mariner wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

Off season PDX-DEN operates once a day at 2:40pm to 6:15pm into DEN, hardly a same day connection to be had, they are useless except for PDX-DEN flying.

I can easily remember where it didn't operate even daily in the winter. Frontier's mostly leisure traffic falls off a cliff after about Labor Day and stays that way until spring.

So I don't see the problem. If you find it inconvenient - useless - you can fly another airline.

mariner

It's no problem for me, I won't fly ULCC. It's not a connection carrier for Portland, that is my point. Why they are touting possible 45 minute connections via alternate airports, it seems they could straighten out existing markets first, like their main market in Denver.

RWA380 wrote:

It's no problem for me, I won't fly ULCC. It's not a connection carrier for Portland, that is my point. Why they are touting possible 45 minute connections via alternate airports, it seems they could straighten out existing markets first, like their main market in Denver.

Oh, sorry, but you seemed quite irate about it and I believe you've e mentioned it in other posts. If you don't fly the airline, I'm not sure why you care so much, but each to their own, and yes, we agree - Frontier is not a connection carrier at PDX - at least in winter, who knows what will happen next summer.

However, as I said in a previous post, I think they have "straightened out" PDX. It's fairly pointless providing connections if no one wants to connect and Frontier traffic at PDX falls off a a cliff in winter. And not just PDX - going the other way, DEN-LGA loses the non-stop in winter.

On the other hand, the fact that they are flying DEN-PDX 3 x daily in summer is representative of the very seasonal business model. The north-east coast largely dies in the winter and the aircraft are diverted to the snowbird routes. This reverses in the summer - a lot of the beach resort stuff is dropped or heavily cut back, and the aircraft are routed east-west for the season. Obviously, there are exceptions to this, but the rule mostly holds.

mariner

Do they have alot of connecting pax in DEN? I thought it was more of an O&D hub.

nadavatar64 wrote:

Do they have alot of connecting pax in DEN? I thought it was more of an O&D hub.

Frontier will carry anyone who wants to go - LOL.

As above, my first flight with them, twenty years ago, was BOS-DEN-LAX and it was extremely efficient - and cheap. These days, I'd be mildly surprised if GSO, say, could survive solely on its DEN point to point traffic - I guess that a lot of pax are connecting through to the west coast.

mariner