flyPIT wrote:

Please no.

"Original architect behind airport's midfield terminal wants to help with revamp"
http://www.post-gazette.com/business/development/2018/02/14/Original-architect-behind-airport-s-midfield-terminal-wants-to-help-with-revamp/stories/201802140075

What have we done to deserve this? Just when I thought we were gonna get a nice new modern airport haha.

They'll never award that to him. lol.

flyPIT wrote:

Please no.

"Original architect behind airport's midfield terminal wants to help with revamp"
http://www.post-gazette.com/business/development/2018/02/14/Original-architect-behind-airport-s-midfield-terminal-wants-to-help-with-revamp/stories/201802140075

Completely agree....please, no!

I keep laughing at this quote from him:

“We’re going to make a submittal with the firm and hope we’re successful. If not, I will continue to eat and drink and write and design,” he said.

CNN article on OneJet:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/14/news/onejet-new-airlines/

I think it's time they get their own certificate. When you don't control your own aircraft availability and staffing you will see problems begin to surface such as inability to hold a schedule (i.e. PIT-BNA/CVG being dropped on short notice).

So it seems like this terminal update is going to happen no matter what, but, i still can't wrap my head around the idea of getting rid of a large number of the gates. I just don't get it... I mean, we have seen growth, and I fully expect PIT to grow more in the coming 5-10 years. Maybe sooner should we somehow land Amazon or others. I just want to know what ACAA will do when they run out of gate space? Is there a plan for them to "add on" somewhere and have it accomplished within a few month period? Maybe it's just me, but i'd rather have empty gates sitting, than have folks sitting on the tarmac waiting for a gate to open. I will miss the landside terminal. I love PIT.

flyPIT wrote:

CNN article on OneJet:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/14/news/onejet-new-airlines/

I think it's time they get their own certificate. When you don't control your own aircraft availability and staffing you will see problems begin to surface such as inability to hold a schedule (i.e. PIT-BNA/CVG being dropped on short notice).

The certificate thing is a big deal, but also very expensive to achieve. That was why MSY based GLO ultimately shut down after a solid year of operating - the operator was unreliable and disagreements with them led to termination of the contract.

Cush wrote:

I just want to know what ACAA will do when they run out of gate space? Is there a plan for them to "add on" somewhere and have it accomplished within a few month period?

They will have this capability. They're tearing down the ends of the A/B concourses which is 14 or so gates. They're being replaced with a few regional jet bridges, but down the road if needed they can easily rebuild the ends and get the full size gates as needed.

Personally this is my only gripe with the update, I think they should keep the ends. They can remove the gates and re purpose the space for something else (those slot machines perhaps?) and down the road if they need gates they can install new ones and all the infrastructure is still there.

Cush wrote:

So it seems like this terminal update is going to happen no matter what, but, i still can't wrap my head around the idea of getting rid of a large number of the gates. I just don't get it... I mean, we have seen growth, and I fully expect PIT to grow more in the coming 5-10 years. Maybe sooner should we somehow land Amazon or others. I just want to know what ACAA will do when they run out of gate space? Is there a plan for them to "add on" somewhere and have it accomplished within a few month period? Maybe it's just me, but i'd rather have empty gates sitting, than have folks sitting on the tarmac waiting for a gate to open. I will miss the landside terminal. I love PIT.

Looking at it simply, without knowing what's underneath or clearances needed for the adjacent runways/taxiways, it seems gates could be added at all four points of the gate area, when needed.

PITflier wrote:

Cush wrote:

I just want to know what ACAA will do when they run out of gate space? Is there a plan for them to "add on" somewhere and have it accomplished within a few month period?

They will have this capability. They're tearing down the ends of the A/B concourses which is 14 or so gates. They're being replaced with a few regional jet bridges, but down the road if needed they can easily rebuild the ends and get the full size gates as needed.

Personally this is my only gripe with the update, I think they should keep the ends. They can remove the gates and re purpose the space for something else (those slot machines perhaps?) and down the road if they need gates they can install new ones and all the infrastructure is still there.

This and eliminating the wrong runway are my issues. They know damn well that they are going to have to rebuild those ends eventually anyway so why tear them down in the first place? I can see Allegheny County politiics all over both this and the decision to eliminate 28L/10R. The land currently occupied byt that runway is easy to connect directly to the airport parkway behind it and is thus ripe for development. I will be quite curious to see who gets those development rights and also bet several paychecks that when the concourse ends are rebuilt it will be in some fashion the same people that win the rights to develop the 28L/10R property.

Cynical? Your damn right. Ive been working this body for decades. Slip me the rights to develop and you will have my vote on the project. If there isn't some grease for my palms, no vote and thus no project. Losing the gates on the west side of C and D makes sense. Not the ends of A and B tthough. By cutting too many gates and making everything common use they are risking wreaking havoc with the LCC operators. It'll work for a while to be sure but not a very long while.

msycajun wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

CNN article on OneJet:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/14/news/onejet-new-airlines/

I think it's time they get their own certificate. When you don't control your own aircraft availability and staffing you will see problems begin to surface such as inability to hold a schedule (i.e. PIT-BNA/CVG being dropped on short notice).

The certificate thing is a big deal, but also very expensive to achieve. That was why MSY based GLO ultimately shut down after a solid year of operating - the operator was unreliable and disagreements with them led to termination of the contract.

The quick and cheaper way would be to buy one of their current operators and grow from there. I wish them well.

WW ending Miami service. They call it a 'pause.' First glitch in their US expansion.

Curious to see if WN makes any adjustments (or adds) with tomorrow's schedule extension. Hopefully an increase in frequency to MSY.

Flaps wrote:

Cynical? Your damn right. Ive been working this body for decades. Slip me the rights to develop and you will have my vote on the project. If there isn't some grease for my palms, no vote and thus no project. Losing the gates on the west side of C and D makes sense. Not the ends of A and B tthough. By cutting too many gates and making everything common use they are risking wreaking havoc with the LCC operators. It'll work for a while to be sure but not a very long while.

I agree getting rid of the ends of A and B would be a mistake. The LCC operators like and in a lot of cases prefer common use, also airlines like AA and AS are using common use in a lot of their hub operations now. Going completely common use is a good thing for PIT and hopefully, airports like CLE, CVG, IND, MCI, MKE, STL follow PIT down the path to becoming common use airport.

msycajun wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

CNN article on OneJet:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/14/news/onejet-new-airlines/

I think it's time they get their own certificate. When you don't control your own aircraft availability and staffing you will see problems begin to surface such as inability to hold a schedule (i.e. PIT-BNA/CVG being dropped on short notice).

The certificate thing is a big deal, but also very expensive to achieve. That was why MSY based GLO ultimately shut down after a solid year of operating - the operator was unreliable and disagreements with them led to termination of the contract.

Was that not Contour who operated as GLO?

OneJet needs to buy a certificate, but it will be a lot of work to mold that certificate into what they envision. Do they atleast own the E-135s? And lease them to Contour to operate?

Runway28L wrote:

Curious to see if WN makes any adjustments (or adds) with tomorrow's schedule extension. Hopefully an increase in frequency to MSY.

Adding either OAK or SAN would be on my personal WN wish list: OAK would put a little pressure on UA's PIT-SFO service (which is a little pricey for my liking) and SAN has seemingly been a wish list domestic destination from PIT for years.

dabpit wrote:

I agree getting rid of the ends of A and B would be a mistake. The LCC operators like and in a lot of cases prefer common use, also airlines like AA and AS are using common use in a lot of their hub operations now. Going completely common use is a good thing for PIT and hopefully, airports like CLE, CVG, IND, MCI, MKE, STL follow PIT down the path to becoming common use airport.

I'm not so sure WN would be as on board with common use gates as the other carriers given their boarding process (specifically: would ACAA have WN Boarding Posts at most of these common use gates?).

DeltaRules wrote:

Robert1010 wrote:

Wonder if PIT paid for this route also?

I think the only question is "how much?".

I've been keeping an eye on it; its been a couple weeks and so far no mention of any incentives beyond the standard waiving of landing fees for a new route [SLC].

Cush wrote:

So it seems like this terminal update is going to happen no matter what, but, i still can't wrap my head around the idea of getting rid of a large number of the gates. I just don't get it... I mean, we have seen growth, and I fully expect PIT to grow more in the coming 5-10 years. Maybe sooner should we somehow land Amazon or others. I just want to know what ACAA will do when they run out of gate space?

The terminal will have a stated capacity of 18 million when it is opened with the ability to expand to 25 million by adding the ends of A and B back on. That is a lot of capacity for what we need. I wish they would have done this type of layout in 1992. With landside attached, they could have easily built the 75 gates by building C and D full length.

My biggest gripe about it is non-aviation related development on airport land more suited for aviation industries.

Runway28L wrote:

Curious to see if WN makes any adjustments (or adds) with tomorrow's schedule extension. Hopefully an increase in frequency to MSY.

And BNA. And STL. And adding OAK or SAN or PHL or NYC. So many options for WN at PIT; so little growth from WN at PIT :/

flyPIT wrote:

Runway28L wrote:

Curious to see if WN makes any adjustments (or adds) with tomorrow's schedule extension. Hopefully an increase in frequency to MSY.

And BNA. And STL. And adding OAK or SAN or PHL or NYC. So many options for WN at PIT; so little growth from WN at PIT :/

Unless some slots open up at LGA or gate space opens up at EWR, I'd be shocked if WN adds New York from PIT. I'm also skeptical about them resuming PIT-PHL.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

dabpit wrote:

I agree getting rid of the ends of A and B would be a mistake. The LCC operators like and in a lot of cases prefer common use, also airlines like AA and AS are using common use in a lot of their hub operations now. Going completely common use is a good thing for PIT and hopefully, airports like CLE, CVG, IND, MCI, MKE, STL follow PIT down the path to becoming common use airport.

I'm not so sure WN would be as on board with common use gates as the other carriers given their boarding process (specifically: would ACAA have WN Boarding Posts at most of these common use gates?).

They do common use at CUN with no boarding posts. You just line up 1-30 without them. So it is doable. I am curious to see if common use catches on more in the US. STL won't ever go to it though because they have so many extra gates they don't really need to go to that. As airports start running low on gates maybe they will

ctrabs0114 wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Runway28L wrote:

Curious to see if WN makes any adjustments (or adds) with tomorrow's schedule extension. Hopefully an increase in frequency to MSY.

And BNA. And STL. And adding OAK or SAN or PHL or NYC. So many options for WN at PIT; so little growth from WN at PIT :/

Unless some slots open up at LGA or gate space opens up at EWR, I'd be shocked if WN adds New York from PIT. I'm also skeptical about them resuming PIT-PHL.

I know I've posted this elsewhere so apologies if it's old news, but WN has already stated they'd like to add CMH-LGA and the lack of slots is stopping them. Those two issues might stand in the way of PIT-LGA.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

I'm not so sure WN would be as on board with common use gates as the other carriers given their boarding process (specifically: would ACAA have WN Boarding Posts at most of these common use gates?).

Jshank83 wrote:

They do common use at CUN with no boarding posts. You just line up 1-30 without them. So it is doable. I am curious to see if common use catches on more in the US. STL won't ever go to it though because they have so many extra gates they don't really need to go to that. As airports start running low on gates maybe they will

WN uses common use at other airports. As Jshank83 stated there is no issue for WN to board without the post. Personally I think those WN Posts are a waste of space where more seating could be added for passengers.

Checked the WN web site about an hour ago. No changes.

Article about closing the runway at PIT: http://www.post-gazette.com/business/de ... 1802160104

WN cutting PIT-FMY to Saturday only from daily. WN adding CVG-DEN (???) already with a lot of competition.

Cush wrote:

Article about closing the runway at PIT: http://www.post-gazette.com/business/de ... 1802160104

A few points about this article:

-"The master plan recommendation is based in part on estimates that show that even with the recent surge in new flights, the number of travelers using the airport will jump to only 12 million by 2033 — or about 500,000 more than in 1980."

The master plan estimates are from 2013 and we are already running about 3 years ahead of projections. We will hit 12 million long before 2033.



-"Total aircraft operations are expected to climb from 139,300 in 2013 to 166,560 in 2033 "

Same here, 2017 total operations will be about 150,000 for 2017.



-"Ms. Cassotis said Heathrow, for example, handles some 70 million passengers a year with two runways.Narita in Tokyo accommodates nearly 40 million a year with the same number."

Half our operations do not consist of A380s and 777s. I'm surprised Ms. Cassotis would make such a comparison. In 1981 PIT only had 11.5 million passengers yet was the 6th busiest airport in the world with 320,000 operations. See reply #1189 here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1349529&start=1150

Its a silly correlation she is making, especially with OneJet and Southern Airways express being our largest contributors to operations.



-I wish the article went into detail over the safety and operational issues of closing 10R/28L vs. 10C/28C. I think I spelled it out clearly in the topic "PIT Remodeling Airport" thread but if anyone missed that topic here are the issues I mentioned:

"On to the topic of the runway closure. This is what I disagree with most about the master plan. Yes, 28C and 28R have enough separation for simultaneous independent IFR arrivals. By literally one foot. They are separated by 4,301' (4,300' required). So yes they can add an ILS to the current center runway.

Here's my main problem with the plan they chose.

Right now one of the preferred configurations is to land on 32 (for noise abatement) and depart 28L from P. There is no conflict at all as both streams do not intersect each other. Arrivals on 32 and departures on 28L from P can happen independent and simultaneously. There is also no conflict with aircraft taxiing in with those taxiing out as the taxiway infrastructure allows for both to happen at the same time.

But look at their preferred option:


-Taxiing conflict. An aircraft just landed on 32 will taxi to the terminal westbound on E (the taxiway immediately north and parallel to the former 28C). An aircraft taxiing for departure on the former 28C will taxi eastbound on E. Aircraft will now need to wait on each other to pass, negating any fuel savings that 28C has over 28L by being closer to the terminal.

-Intersecting runways. An aircraft departing on the former 28C will need to cross 32 on taxi out. It will also need to cross 32 again on takeoff roll. That's two runway crossings for one operation. Two potential areas for a runway incursion plus reduced capacity. The FAA should shut this plan down based on that alone.

-The report mentioned major work/relocation needed on E to allow the former 28C to be used for Group V aircraft (B777/B744) without impacting the availability of E by other aircraft.


But if 28L is allowed to stay open:


- The two parallel taxiways would stay open eliminating the taxi in/taxi out conflict I mentioned

- The double runway crossings for aircraft departing the former 28C is eliminated

- The current 28L and parallel taxiway F are the only Group VI (B748/A380) capable runway/taxiway pair at the airport. If a Group VI aircraft needs to use 28R or 28C, the accompanying parallel taxiway can not be used by any other aircraft.


For those not familiar, here is an airport diagram with the taxiway designators I mentioned:




Hopefully the FAA is on board with the points I made above and interjects. Runway conflicts and incursions are a huge topic with them right now. They spent a LOT of money at CLE deconflicting the parallels from the cross runway up there. And CLE's 28 is not used nearly as much as 32 is at PIT."

"In a statement Thursday, the FAA said it is aware of the authority’s proposal to close runway 10 Right/28 Left and that it would have the final say."

flyPIT, have you been able to bring these concerns up to them in a public way at all? Or to the media?

ConcourseZ wrote:

WN cutting PIT-FMY to Saturday only from daily. WN adding CVG-DEN (???) already with a lot of competition.

Right city, wrong airport. It's PIT-RSW that's getting reduced to Saturdays only (this might be a seasonal cut, since I think that was the case last year, if I'm not mistaken).

AaronPGH wrote:

flyPIT, have you been able to bring these concerns up to them in a public way at all? Or to the media?

I need to find a good contact and snail mail address at the FAA since they are the ones ultimately approving the decision. As far as bringing it up to the ACAA the higher ups there as well as the G-P writer who did the article do follow this thread so I'm not too worried about it. The items I brought up are really pretty basic for those involved with such planning.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

ConcourseZ wrote:

WN cutting PIT-FMY to Saturday only from daily. WN adding CVG-DEN (???) already with a lot of competition.

Right city, wrong airport. It's PIT-RSW that's getting reduced to Saturdays only (this might be a seasonal cut, since I think that was the case last year, if I'm not mistaken).

Seasonal or not, that is a drastic reduction considering it it currently 2x daily. Just like that SRQ will have better frequency than RSW come this fall.

flyPIT wrote:

[1]Right now one of the preferred configurations is to land on 32 (for noise abatement) and depart 28L from P. There is no conflict at all as both streams do not intersect each other. Arrivals on 32 and departures on 28L from P can happen independent and simultaneously. There is also no conflict with aircraft taxiing in with those taxiing out as the taxiway infrastructure allows for both to happen at the same time.


[2]-Taxiing conflict. An aircraft just landed on 32 will taxi to the terminal westbound on E (the taxiway immediately north and parallel to the former 28C). An aircraft taxiing for departure on the former 28C will taxi eastbound on E. Aircraft will now need to wait on each other to pass, negating any fuel savings that 28C has over 28L by being closer to the terminal.

[3]-Intersecting runways. An aircraft departing on the former 28C will need to cross 32 on taxi out. It will also need to cross 32 again on takeoff roll. That's two runway crossings for one operation. Two potential areas for a runway incursion plus reduced capacity. The FAA should shut this plan down based on that alone.

[4]-The report mentioned major work/relocation needed on E to allow the former 28C to be used for Group V aircraft (B777/B744) without impacting the availability of E by other aircraft.


[5]- The current 28L and parallel taxiway F are the only Group VI (B748/A380) capable runway/taxiway pair at the airport. If a Group VI aircraft needs to use 28R or 28C, the accompanying parallel taxiway can not be used by any other aircraft.

1) what data do you have to support your statement about landing 32 and departing 28L @ P as being the preferred runways for use? Because I can tell you Since last April, I have landed on 32 twice, both times only because 28L was closed. Even when 32 has been the advertised runway for arrivals, my captain or myself have requested and received 28L For arrival. I have taken off on 28L @P maybe three times in that same period and that was during the fall when 28R was being shut down for MX. That was the ONLY reason why I have ever used 28L for departing. And to add, I have taken off From 28C full length once and their was no operational difficulty in doing so.

As I said before in the other thread, no matter which flow is being used, 98% of the time, the left runway is arrivals and the right side is departures. On an easterly flow that means 10C is being utilized for departures and 10L for arrivals. I have never taken off on 10R, but I have witnessed aircraft doing so maybe a handful of times. On a westerly flow, 28L arrivals and 28R departures...

The majority of aircraft using 32 to land is either Corporate aircraft going to Atlantic or the mid field or FedEx/UPS because it offers the quickest taxi in times to cargo. 32 offers the longest taxi time for any aircraft going to the terminal. The only airlines it somewhat makes sense for is for aircraft going to the north sides of A/D terminals, but they aren't using Echo to taxi in, they exit right and use November/Bravo to taxi in.

2) as I said above, most of the airline arrivals I have witnessed from 32 taxi around on the north side of the airfield, not on Taxiway Echo. Even in the 170/175, making taxiway Echo requires heavy braking. Both times I have landed on 32, I made Echo, but it required us to come to a nearly complete stop before making the turn. There is not a huge fuel differences between the two runways either. We taxi out single engine, we taxi in single engine.

Airports run with standardized flows. I don't know why you don't think PIT ATC could not manage an efficient flow of aircraft on the field once the changes are made.

3) as I said in #1, 32 is not the primary landing runway nor is 28L or future 28L the primary departing runway. There would be no reduction of capacity on a normal day. The only time it might occur would be when 28R is shut down arrivals are able to take 32. Even then, Pit is not running a huge amount of traffic that ATC would not be able to handle all of this. Even with two runways, they have the operational capacity to handle all of the flight per the study.

4/5) we get a group 5 aircraft how often? it's a rare event already. I fully believe our ATC is capable of handling an oddball group v aircraft every once in a while on the new layout.

Are your points valid arguments? Absolutely, but I don't think they will outweigh the cost benefit of shutting down 28L.

flightsimer wrote:

1) what data do you have to support your statement about landing 32 and departing 28L @ P as being the preferred runways for use? Because I can tell you Since last April, I have landed on 32 twice, both times only because 28L was closed. Even when 32 has been the advertised runway for arrivals, my captain or myself have requested and received 28L For arrival. I have taken off on 28L @P maybe three times in that same period and that was during the fall when 28R was being shut down for MX. That was the ONLY reason why I have ever used 28L for departing. And to add, I have taken off From 28C full length once and their was no operational difficulty in doing so.

32 has been the preferred noise abatement arrival runway for as long as I remember having an interest in PIT (both personally and professionally) which goes back to 1983. You also stated 32 has been the advertised runway for arrivals (of course they'll give you 28L if you request it). Perhaps that changed very recently then, but if so I imagine as PIT gets busier the noise complaints under the 28L path will pick up again. As far as departing 28L/P, you even stated in your recent experience that you did this 3 times compared to only once from 28C.

The rest of your response assumes 32 is not the preferred arrival runway. I suppose they can make changes to the preferred configurations so that this is the case but like I said that would be at the expense of noise abatement. Regardless there would still be times 32 is used, and taxiing up using N negates any fuel savings, using E to taxi in brings the taxi in/taxi out conflict back when the "new" 28L is used for departure, and worst of all the double runway crossing for "new" 28L departures.

flightsimer wrote:

4/5) we get a group 5 aircraft how often? it's a rare event already. I fully believe our ATC is capable of handling an oddball group v aircraft every once in a while on the new layout.

Are your points valid arguments? Absolutely, but I don't think they will outweigh the cost benefit of shutting down 28L.

So the cost benefit in this most recent article states they would save $2.1 million a year by closing 10R/28L. But the master plan update states that if 10C/28C is kept then sections of E would need to be moved to increase spacing for Group 5 aircraft, even if we only see a few of those a year. What is the cost of rebuilding that taxiway?

I never implied that PIT ATC can't do an efficient job with whatever configuration they end up with, but will it be the most efficient scenario possible? Then again they have some sort of stupid agreement with ramp control dictating specific entry and exit points to the ramp, even when there is not another airplane within 50 miles. If I have a main concern it is closing 10R/28L leaves an intersecting runway situation on the south airfield. Not so if they close 10C/28C. Unfortunately, it is 10C/28C that is in much better condition and that I presume is what is driving this decision.

From today's OAG:

WN LAX-PIT SEP 1.0>0.7

I find this very surprising. 90% reported LFs only to go less than daily. Coupled with the brutal history of this route has me a bit worried.

But who knows, maybe I'm reading too much into it and it's just seasonal.

Runway28L wrote:

From today's OAG:

WN LAX-PIT SEP 1.0>0.7

I find this very surprising. 90% reported LFs only to go less than daily. Coupled with the brutal history of this route has me a bit worried.

But who knows, maybe I'm reading too much into it and it's just seasonal.

Are new aircraft deliveries on schedule vs new routes WN is starting?

Hopefully it is just a cut for the Sept period. Outside of a couple growth areas such as BNA and SJC the vast majority of WN's Sept changes are cuts. It's interesting though that WN will be operating PIT-LAX M-F. Normally a 5x weekly schedule would include one day on the weekend. Maybe WN doesn't want to bother fighting NK for the lower yielding weekend stuff. Regardless it does not bode well for hoping WN might launch OAK and SAN. We can certainly toss out the CEO's statement made a couple years ago that WN hopes to be the clear market leader in Pittsburgh.


On a brighter note, 2018 is off to a strong start with a 8.6% increase in Jan:
http://www.post-gazette.com/business/development/2018/02/16/Ohio-developer-neyer-to-build-warehouses-near-Pittsburgh-International-Airport-corridor/stories/201802160156

flyPIT wrote:

We can certainly toss out the CEO's statement made a couple years ago that WN hopes to be the clear market leader in Pittsburgh.

Thanks Goodness! I hate Southworst. Have never flown on them and will never fly on them. My worst nightmare was them building a larger presence here in PIT.

flyPIT wrote:

We can certainly toss out the CEO's statement made a couple years ago that WN hopes to be the clear market leader in Pittsburgh.

Doesn't WN rank 1st in total pax flown out of PIT? IIRC they were projected to be after acquiring FL but then the US/AA merger happened. I imagine the numbers between both WN and AA have to be very close.

If WN is already 1st in pax totals and want to be the "market leader" then they seem to be doing so at the lowest possible profile.

Cush wrote:

Thanks Goodness! I hate Southworst. Have never flown on them and will never fly on them. My worst nightmare was them building a larger presence here in PIT.

Lol really? How come? I've flown WN many times out of PIT and they've been fantastic. Never have experienced an issue.

Runway28L wrote:

If WN is already 1st in pax totals and want to be the "market leader" then they seem to be doing so at the lowest possible profile.

They are first by like 2 people. Certainly not the clear market leader he alluded to.

flyPIT wrote:

ctrabs0114 wrote:

Right city, wrong airport. It's PIT-RSW that's getting reduced to Saturdays only (this might be a seasonal cut, since I think that was the case last year, if I'm not mistaken).

Seasonal or not, that is a drastic reduction considering it it currently 2x daily. Just like that SRQ will have better frequency than RSW come this fall.

WN from PIT to RSW went from .6 to .3 flights/week (from the weekly OAG posting) in August and from 0.3 to 0.2 in September.

WN dropping of weekend service to LAX, however, has me a little concerned. That makes no sense to me at all.

flyPIT wrote:

Hopefully it is just a cut for the Sept period. Outside of a couple growth areas such as BNA and SJC the vast majority of WN's Sept changes are cuts. It's interesting though that WN will be operating PIT-LAX M-F. Normally a 5x weekly schedule would include one day on the weekend. Maybe WN doesn't want to bother fighting NK for the lower yielding weekend stuff. Regardless it does not bode well for hoping WN might launch OAK and SAN. We can certainly toss out the CEO's statement made a couple years ago that WN hopes to be the clear market leader in Pittsburgh.

I'm still shocked anybody with any common sense would even consider flying NK in the first place, but, as I said in my previous reply on this thread, it kinda stinks to not have a weekend non-stop between PIT and LAX on WN.

Cush wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

We can certainly toss out the CEO's statement made a couple years ago that WN hopes to be the clear market leader in Pittsburgh.

Thanks Goodness! I hate Southworst. Have never flown on them and will never fly on them. My worst nightmare was them building a larger presence here in PIT.

Strong opinion for someone who has never flown them.

Speaking of reductions, it looks like G4 is trimming service to AUT, MSY, PGD and PIE - not sure if these are seasonal cuts or not, but that also jumped out at me.

Meanwhile, AA is adding a fifth schedule to DFW.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Hopefully it is just a cut for the Sept period. Outside of a couple growth areas such as BNA and SJC the vast majority of WN's Sept changes are cuts. It's interesting though that WN will be operating PIT-LAX M-F. Normally a 5x weekly schedule would include one day on the weekend. Maybe WN doesn't want to bother fighting NK for the lower yielding weekend stuff. Regardless it does not bode well for hoping WN might launch OAK and SAN. We can certainly toss out the CEO's statement made a couple years ago that WN hopes to be the clear market leader in Pittsburgh.

I'm still shocked anybody with any common sense would even consider flying NK in the first place, but, as I said in my previous reply on this thread, it kinda stinks to not have a weekend non-stop between PIT and LAX on WN.

And oddly enough, it seems like the data here flyPIT kindly provided earlier supports that claim:

flyPIT wrote:

Aug '17
WN 92%
NK 74%

Oct '17
WN 90%
NK 84%

In Sept NK was at 63% so PIT-LAX is not looking good for them.

If you're looking for a ridiculously low fare and don't care at all about product, then great. NK is for you. But it seems like this crowd is a bit less in numbers hence the lower NK LFs.

But if you want at the very least want a decent product (or in the case of WN, also price), you now have zero weekend options but to connect at CLT, PHX, DFW etc. If you work and need to be in the LA area on a Monday but would like to leave Sunday afternoon, then there's a lot left to be desired.

But here's another factor: I have to wonder if Pittsburghers are avoiding the main airport (LAX) all together due to perception or experience. For example, my dad has to travel for work. Instead of flying direct to LAX, he connects at MDW on WN and flies info the smaller SNA. He absolutely loves the experience at that airport and picks it over LAX in a heartbeat nearly everytime. I'd be curious to see how many Pittsburghers travel to the other airports (SNA, ONT, BUR, LGB) on a yearly basis.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

Speaking of reductions, it looks like G4 is trimming service to AUT, MSY, PGD and PIE - not sure if these are seasonal cuts or not, but that also jumped out at me.

Meanwhile, AA is adding a fifth schedule to DFW.

Those G4 reductions are for 6 weeks only in August and Sept then come right back. This is already reflected on G4's website. Incidentally the last OAG G4 update had PIT-JAX/SAV at 2x weekly (a reduction of one) but their website is still showing 3x weekly for the most part.

AA going to 5x daily with PIT-DFW in the summer is what they have done in the past.

Runway28L wrote:

From today's OAG:

WN LAX-PIT SEP 1.0>0.7

I find this very surprising. 90% reported LFs only to go less than daily. Coupled with the brutal history of this route has me a bit worried.

But who knows, maybe I'm reading too much into it and it's just seasonal.

CMH had a couple head-scratching reductions around the same time.

Runway28L wrote:

ctrabs0114 wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Hopefully it is just a cut for the Sept period. Outside of a couple growth areas such as BNA and SJC the vast majority of WN's Sept changes are cuts. It's interesting though that WN will be operating PIT-LAX M-F. Normally a 5x weekly schedule would include one day on the weekend. Maybe WN doesn't want to bother fighting NK for the lower yielding weekend stuff. Regardless it does not bode well for hoping WN might launch OAK and SAN. We can certainly toss out the CEO's statement made a couple years ago that WN hopes to be the clear market leader in Pittsburgh.

I'm still shocked anybody with any common sense would even consider flying NK in the first place, but, as I said in my previous reply on this thread, it kinda stinks to not have a weekend non-stop between PIT and LAX on WN.

And oddly enough, it seems like the data here flyPIT kindly provided earlier supports that claim:

flyPIT wrote:

Aug '17
WN 92%
NK 74%

Oct '17
WN 90%
NK 84%

In Sept NK was at 63% so PIT-LAX is not looking good for them.

If you're looking for a ridiculously low fare and don't care at all about product, then great. NK is for you. But it seems like this crowd is a bit less in numbers hence the lower NK LFs.

But if you want at the very least want a decent product (or in the case of WN, also price), you now have zero weekend options but to connect at CLT, PHX, DFW etc. If you work and need to be in the LA area on a Monday but would like to leave Sunday afternoon, then there's a lot left to be desired.

But here's another factor: I have to wonder if Pittsburghers are avoiding the main airport (LAX) all together due to perception or experience. For example, my dad has to travel for work. Instead of flying direct to LAX, he connects at MDW on WN and flies info the smaller SNA. He absolutely loves the experience at that airport and picks it over LAX in a heartbeat nearly everytime. I'd be curious to see how many Pittsburghers travel to the other airports (SNA, ONT, BUR, LGB) on a yearly basis.

It does surprise me that none of the US3 legacies at least offer one daily non-stop to LAX, considering that AA, DL and UA have major presences at LAX, but I could see what you mean about people from Pittsburgh preferring to fly into another LA area airport. I remember having to fly back from LAX to PIT a couple years ago while they were renovating T1 at LAX and was far from impressed with that experience.

As for weekend connections, it looks like most of the WN connections to LAX are via MDW or DAL; I don't mind connecting at MDW if I have to, to be honest.

Runway28L wrote:

...But if you want at the very least want a decent product (or in the case of WN, also price)...

WN a good product? No first class, no seat assignments...NO THANKS.

tarmacphotos wrote:

WN a good product? No first class, no seat assignments...NO THANKS.

Totally agree... I'd rather have no service than to be stuck with Southwest.

Cush wrote:

tarmacphotos wrote:

WN a good product? No first class, no seat assignments...NO THANKS.

Totally agree... I'd rather have no service than to be stuck with Southwest.

Domestic first class is hardly anything to jump up and down about. Neither are assigned seats for that matter. I almost exclusively fly Southwest and have never had trouble getting a window or aisle seat but to each their own I guess.

knope2001 wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Looks like PIT-JHW will be getting the axe due to lack of EAS funding:
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/63056-us-dot-terminates-eas-subsidy-for-jamestown-ny

Unfortunately nearly all of Southern’s operation in the Mid-Atlantic is in serious danger of losing EAS. Except for markets 210+ miles from a medium- or large-hub airport the per-passenger cap cannot exceed $200. Only Morgantown meets that requirement. In addition to that Jamestown, Altoona, Franklin and DuBois also boarded fewer than 10 passengers per day which will also get you kicked off of EAS.

Per-passenger cap
$460 Jamestown**
$448 Altoona**
$413 Franklin/Oil City**
$412 DuBois**
$379 Lancaster
$281 Johnstown
$242 Bradford
$241 Hagerstown
$156 Morgantown

**also did not enplane at least 10 passengers per day, an EAS requirement**

Southern's subsidy for these routes is about $21 million per year and they form something of a critical mass for them, one which lets them try something unsubsidized like PIT-MDT. With planes and crew and facilities already in Pennsylvania and (generally) paid for by EAS it's comparably cheap to try Harrisburg, and maybe eventually Youngstown or Toledo or who knows.

About 25% of the 110-ish EAS markets (outside of Alaska) were in violation of minimum enplanements or excessive per-passenger subsidy and most got a waiver to continue receiving subsidy. Many of those airports made a case on why they can get back in compliance – perhaps they had a service hiatus or have a new carrier which offers much better service versus the carrier they had. But this group of PA/MD markets are worrisome as I don’t see a big reason why traffic will boom – in some traffic would need to more than double to get under the $200 cap. Not that Southern is a crappy carrier or that they have not been trying, but It’s a tough sell. The DoT is fairly slow to kick cities off of EAS but their patience isn't endless -- scores of cities have lost EAS over the years.

I hope that Johnstown does not loose their service as I am scheduled to fly out of Johnstown in a few weeks.