ERJ170 wrote:Terminal 1 was the old blue box... Terminal 2 is where the old AA hub terminal was located
RDUflyer wrote:WN adding daily AUS service beginning June 9.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... G3eX75oIA4
EDIT: RDU Airport Twitter just confirmed this, and RDU CEO also says WN is adding weekly SJC!
https://twitter.com/RDUAirport/status/1 ... 0080211969
RDUAA is having its monthly board meeting. CEO says October up 8.2 percent (1.1 million total pax for the month) — DL, UA and F9 the primary drivers. I'll keep an eye out for any other news.
rajincajun01 wrote:RDUflyer wrote:WN adding daily AUS service beginning June 9.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... G3eX75oIA4
EDIT: RDU Airport Twitter just confirmed this, and RDU CEO also says WN is adding weekly SJC!
https://twitter.com/RDUAirport/status/1 ... 0080211969
RDUAA is having its monthly board meeting. CEO says October up 8.2 percent (1.1 million total pax for the month) — DL, UA and F9 the primary drivers. I'll keep an eye out for any other news.
Did not see WN being the carrier to pull the trigger on SJC.
WN is getting two more gates at AUS in February, so this isn’t too big of a surprise. Very nice add.
LovePrunesAnet wrote:rajincajun01 wrote:RDUflyer wrote:WN adding daily AUS service beginning June 9.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... G3eX75oIA4
EDIT: RDU Airport Twitter just confirmed this, and RDU CEO also says WN is adding weekly SJC!
https://twitter.com/RDUAirport/status/1 ... 0080211969
RDUAA is having its monthly board meeting. CEO says October up 8.2 percent (1.1 million total pax for the month) — DL, UA and F9 the primary drivers. I'll keep an eye out for any other news.
Did not see WN being the carrier to pull the trigger on SJC.
WN is getting two more gates at AUS in February, so this isn’t too big of a surprise. Very nice add.
The Tweet say SJC-RDU is ONCE PER WEEK.
Is that correct?
What is the point in that? Why bother.
LovePrunesAnet wrote:rajincajun01 wrote:RDUflyer wrote:WN adding daily AUS service beginning June 9.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... G3eX75oIA4
EDIT: RDU Airport Twitter just confirmed this, and RDU CEO also says WN is adding weekly SJC!
https://twitter.com/RDUAirport/status/1 ... 0080211969
RDUAA is having its monthly board meeting. CEO says October up 8.2 percent (1.1 million total pax for the month) — DL, UA and F9 the primary drivers. I'll keep an eye out for any other news.
Did not see WN being the carrier to pull the trigger on SJC.
WN is getting two more gates at AUS in February, so this isn’t too big of a surprise. Very nice add.
The Tweet say SJC-RDU is ONCE PER WEEK.
Is that correct?
What is the point in that? Why bother.
ERJ170 wrote:Terminal 1 was the old blue box... Terminal 2 is where the old AA hub terminal was located
Noise wrote:Would have rather seen DL or AS begin RDU-SJC daily than WN on a weekly flight.
blueheronNC wrote:Noise wrote:Would have rather seen DL or AS begin RDU-SJC daily than WN on a weekly flight.
Also once per week on Saturday as a test route is not going to expose this route to the best utilization. It’s not a test route in a vacuum but competes against RDU-SFO on UA and AS with multiple frequencies daily. Saturday is the lightest utilization on this route - if you’re coming home from a week at work you cut out early on Friday so that you’re home by evening. If you’re heading out for work you wait until Sunday or even Monday morning. Also the value propostion of not having to drive the 30 miles from Silicon Valley to SFO by flying out of SJC makes more sense in weekday traffic. On a weekend it’s easy to zip up 101 or 280 to SFO.
rajincajun01 wrote:blueheronNC wrote:Noise wrote:Would have rather seen DL or AS begin RDU-SJC daily than WN on a weekly flight.
Also once per week on Saturday as a test route is not going to expose this route to the best utilization. It’s not a test route in a vacuum but competes against RDU-SFO on UA and AS with multiple frequencies daily. Saturday is the lightest utilization on this route - if you’re coming home from a week at work you cut out early on Friday so that you’re home by evening. If you’re heading out for work you wait until Sunday or even Monday morning. Also the value propostion of not having to drive the 30 miles from Silicon Valley to SFO by flying out of SJC makes more sense in weekday traffic. On a weekend it’s easy to zip up 101 or 280 to SFO.
No one is saying it’s optimal, but again this is a way to test a route while there is slack in the fleet on Saturdays. Southwest is well aware that Saturday is a slower traffic day and will adjust their data accordingly.
The route isn’t designed to cater to SFO passengers necessarily. There is plenty of traffic out of RDU that prefers SJC, esp with tech companies. Just because the airports are a 30-40 min drive apart doesn’t mean people that live further north of SJC don’t want a shorter commute, where it would easily be over an hour long.
rajincajun01 wrote:No one is saying it’s optimal, but again this is a way to test a route while there is slack in the fleet on Saturdays. Southwest is well aware that Saturday is a slower traffic day and will adjust their data accordingly.
The route isn’t designed to cater to SFO passengers necessarily. There is plenty of traffic out of RDU that prefers SJC, esp with tech companies. Just because the airports are a 30-40 min drive apart doesn’t mean people that live further south and east of SJC don’t want a shorter commute, where it would easily be over an hour long.
RDU officials have long sought nonstop service between the Triangle and Silicon Valley. The Southwest flights, however, will only happen one day a week, on Sundays, and airport officials are still hoping for more frequent service.
Midwestindy wrote:rajincajun01 wrote:No one is saying it’s optimal, but again this is a way to test a route while there is slack in the fleet on Saturdays. Southwest is well aware that Saturday is a slower traffic day and will adjust their data accordingly.
The route isn’t designed to cater to SFO passengers necessarily. There is plenty of traffic out of RDU that prefers SJC, esp with tech companies. Just because the airports are a 30-40 min drive apart doesn’t mean people that live further south and east of SJC don’t want a shorter commute, where it would easily be over an hour long.
Again, they aren't running the flight for business travelers, it is a Sun-only flight that will connect RDU to the Hawaii network.
In the future it might be meant to appeal to business travelers, but for now it is not
MonAmQB wrote:[list=][/list] RDU-SJC is my most frequent domestic route. But once a week on weekend is of no use to me. I need a daily, at least weekday flight. I think most people on this route is like me. This is a business route. If DL can step up and offer it, it'll be the best.
rajincajun01 wrote:Midwestindy wrote:rajincajun01 wrote:No one is saying it’s optimal, but again this is a way to test a route while there is slack in the fleet on Saturdays. Southwest is well aware that Saturday is a slower traffic day and will adjust their data accordingly.
The route isn’t designed to cater to SFO passengers necessarily. There is plenty of traffic out of RDU that prefers SJC, esp with tech companies. Just because the airports are a 30-40 min drive apart doesn’t mean people that live further south and east of SJC don’t want a shorter commute, where it would easily be over an hour long.
Again, they aren't running the flight for business travelers, it is a Sun-only flight that will connect RDU to the Hawaii network.
In the future it might be meant to appeal to business travelers, but for now it is not
WN doesn’t even serve Hawaii yet. No start date announced. Tickets not even on sale.
rajincajun01 wrote:WN will not start Hawaii flights on two, maybe three, months notice.
rajincajun01 wrote:I guarantee ever dollar I got you won’t even have 50 people regularly connecting to/from HI on this flight, never mind 100-130 like you seem to think. Hawaii is too low of a yield as is and it will only be more trash when Southwest starts service.
rajincajun01 wrote:“...AT LEAST a few weeks away...”. Could always be more. Especially around holidays. This process has already taken longer than WN expected.
“...first flight could occur”. Doesn’t mean it will. WN is a financially responsible airline and won’t be flying over the Pacific with LFs of 50-60% and cheap fares.
You said this route is mostly to feed a Hawaii network. There will be zero inbound connections from HI unless WN starts redeyes.
An airline will never start a transcon route to feed a historically low yield network based off of 10-25 connections in only one direction.
Midwestindy wrote:rajincajun01 wrote:“...AT LEAST a few weeks away...”. Could always be more. Especially around holidays. This process has already taken longer than WN expected.
“...first flight could occur”. Doesn’t mean it will. WN is a financially responsible airline and won’t be flying over the Pacific with LFs of 50-60% and cheap fares.
You said this route is mostly to feed a Hawaii network. There will be zero inbound connections from HI unless WN starts redeyes.
An airline will never start a transcon route to feed a historically low yield network based off of 10-25 connections in only one direction.
I am not going to argue around in circles about "could, should, would, e.t.c, but just to clarify
https://beatofhawaii.com/southwest-hawa ... ne-update/
"FAA sign-off on ETOPS certificate (required for Hawaii) has been delayed for up to 90 days. That could translate into a December/January announcement and February flights."
Southwest EVP and Chief Revenue Officer Andrew Watterson, https://crankyflier.com/2018/09/18/an-u ... aii-plans/:
"Southwest would rather just wait and then start flying quickly even though it won’t have a long booking window to prop up those early flights."
It isn't a coincidence that WN has started numerous TCON routes from SMF/OAK/SJC/SAN right before they announce Hawaii service. There is no doubt O&D associated for these flights, but I believe that WN's build up for Hawaii is a primary reason for these flights, similar to how WN started IND-OAK and is bringing back CMH-OAK
casinterest wrote:ADrum23 wrote:I hate to sound like a broken record (cause I know I've asked this before), but do we have any load factor % for both AA RDU-LHR and DL RDU-CDG? I'm curious to know how the 777 and 767 on those routes respectively are holding up.
They must be holding well, as they both exist and are not going away. I will probably be able to tell you for one flight what it is in about 6 weeks. ( a return leg) the outbound through boston was cheaper if that gives you any ideas.
hockyluv21 wrote:particularly because it even further expands one-stop TATL options to areas not covered by the likes of JFK, such as non-Paris parts of France or North Africa.
Noise wrote:What are the biggest holes in the network for RDU? Domestically, I only see PDX and regular daily flights to SJC, SAN and RSW. That's it.
Internationally, I see FCO, FRA and AMS.
AVLAirlineFreq wrote:Noise wrote:What are the biggest holes in the network for RDU? Domestically, I only see PDX and regular daily flights to SJC, SAN and RSW. That's it.
Internationally, I see FCO, FRA and AMS.
I'd add daily to MSY as well.
ERJ170 wrote:If also add regional flights (CHS, GSP, AVL, ORF, BMH, JAX, SAV, etc), Caribbean (BDA, NAS, etc), Latin America (Panama City, Costa Rica, Quito), and European (AMS, FRA).. Not all daily..
csweet wrote:The only airline that is willing to grow both regionally and internationally for RDU, currently, is DL. As they continue to expand at DTW and ATL, why would they add regional aircraft here where demand is much lower? It makes much more sense to funnel pax through DTW or ATL before going TATL than adding a new widebody to RDU. The market just is not there, relative to CLT, ATL,etc.
casinterest wrote:csweet wrote:The only airline that is willing to grow both regionally and internationally for RDU, currently, is DL. As they continue to expand at DTW and ATL, why would they add regional aircraft here where demand is much lower? It makes much more sense to funnel pax through DTW or ATL before going TATL than adding a new widebody to RDU. The market just is not there, relative to CLT, ATL,etc.
Demand is increasing in RDU. Just because it is lower than the hub fortresses doesn't mean there are not opportunities to grow in RDU. Delta does not operate in a vacuum at RDU. The other airlines will be more than happy to pick up non stop direct flights should RDU drop them. Transatlantic flights still have a lot of people connecting through BOS. CLT, NYC, PHL and other sites. There is room to grow there, especially for American and Delta. The issue is getting slots on the other side of the world. FCO would be a great site for Delta to send traffic to if AZ gets it's act together as it offers great connections to eastern Europe and the Med. Maybe even get AZ to run it. Either way as RDU increases in traffic, the economics are there to offer more flights from RDU when capacity can be guaranteed. The newer A321neo and 737 max might make it worthwhile to run traffic more than once a day to some of these sites. Time will tell from here on out.
I think the China flight might happen first though as that region is growing fast and there are more demands from business to make inroads into China.
csweet wrote:casinterest wrote:csweet wrote:The only airline that is willing to grow both regionally and internationally for RDU, currently, is DL. As they continue to expand at DTW and ATL, why would they add regional aircraft here where demand is much lower? It makes much more sense to funnel pax through DTW or ATL before going TATL than adding a new widebody to RDU. The market just is not there, relative to CLT, ATL,etc.
Demand is increasing in RDU. Just because it is lower than the hub fortresses doesn't mean there are not opportunities to grow in RDU. Delta does not operate in a vacuum at RDU. The other airlines will be more than happy to pick up non stop direct flights should RDU drop them. Transatlantic flights still have a lot of people connecting through BOS. CLT, NYC, PHL and other sites. There is room to grow there, especially for American and Delta. The issue is getting slots on the other side of the world. FCO would be a great site for Delta to send traffic to if AZ gets it's act together as it offers great connections to eastern Europe and the Med. Maybe even get AZ to run it. Either way as RDU increases in traffic, the economics are there to offer more flights from RDU when capacity can be guaranteed. The newer A321neo and 737 max might make it worthwhile to run traffic more than once a day to some of these sites. Time will tell from here on out.
I think the China flight might happen first though as that region is growing fast and there are more demands from business to make inroads into China.
Why would AA add flights to RDU? Your logic does not make sense as they can link these flights through so many nearby hubs. Traffic is increasing, but not at a rate similar to the other hubs that you listed. Asia flights are far away and airlines are not going to base their neo's and max's in RDU.
csweet wrote:The only airline that is willing to grow both regionally and internationally for RDU, currently, is DL. As they continue to expand at DTW and ATL, why would they add regional aircraft here where demand is much lower?
csweet wrote:It makes much more sense to funnel pax through DTW or ATL before going TATL than adding a new widebody to RDU. The market just is not there, relative to CLT, ATL,etc.
ncflyer wrote:AA is pretty clear about their strategy everywhere— hubs or bust. RDU to LHR is an outlier. I’m blown away that for many years AA fills up 8-10 large narrow bodies per day on the hop to CLT. I can’t think of too many city pairs like that around the country— can’t be much if any O&D on a short flight like that. I assume AA is very happy with that arrangement, and I also assume market share at RDU is not the highest priority in Dallas.
casinterest wrote:casinterest wrote:ADrum23 wrote:I hate to sound like a broken record (cause I know I've asked this before), but do we have any load factor % for both AA RDU-LHR and DL RDU-CDG? I'm curious to know how the 777 and 767 on those routes respectively are holding up.
They must be holding well, as they both exist and are not going away. I will probably be able to tell you for one flight what it is in about 6 weeks. ( a return leg) the outbound through boston was cheaper if that gives you any ideas.
Yep, CDG-RDU was full last week. I would put the number for my flight at above 90% Probably above 93%. Was also the best service I have had on my overseas flights. (The warm cookie was a great mid flight snack) I have flown a few foreign carriers on other flights.
SeanM1997 wrote:casinterest wrote:casinterest wrote:
They must be holding well, as they both exist and are not going away. I will probably be able to tell you for one flight what it is in about 6 weeks. ( a return leg) the outbound through boston was cheaper if that gives you any ideas.
Yep, CDG-RDU was full last week. I would put the number for my flight at above 90% Probably above 93%. Was also the best service I have had on my overseas flights. (The warm cookie was a great mid flight snack) I have flown a few foreign carriers on other flights.
On the London Heathrow to Raleigh route:
Entire 2016: 111,152
Entire 2017: 125,410 (+13% Year on Year)
January 2018: 10,121 (+30% YoY)
February 2018: 7,166 (+20% YoY)
March 2018: 11,452 (+20% YoY)
April 2018: 10,004 (-13% YoY)
May 2018: 11,370 (-7% YoY)
June 2018: 13,638 (+11% YoY)
July 2018: 13,589 (+6% YoY)
August 2018: 12,635 (+4% YoY)
September 2018: 9,177 (-15% YoY)
October 2018: 10,905 (+6% YoY)
So whilst months fluctuate, generally the London Heathrow to Raleigh route is increasing year on year. As flights are operated on a Boeing 777-200ER with 273 seats. That means roughly 199,290 total seats (both directions combined) annually. In the first 10 months of 2018, 165,984 seats were on offer and 110,057 seats were occupied meant a current load factor of approximately 67%
Data from UK Civil Aviation Authority
casinterest wrote:All of this on a subsidized route with little to no connecting traffic that uses a 777 for the cargo as much as the passengers. Not bad . Remember they upgraded this flight in 2017 for a 777-2 from a 767.
Janj wrote:casinterest wrote:All of this on a subsidized route with little to no connecting traffic that uses a 777 for the cargo as much as the passengers. Not bad . Remember they upgraded this flight in 2017 for a 777-2 from a 767.
I thought the whole thing with the subsidy was that it was available but not necessarily being used? And that when Delta originally asked for it for CDG, AA threatened to cancel their flight (just because they never actually got any subsidy money)? I might be remembering this wrong, but I just thought it was there just in case it would ever be needed.