With the Coachella Valley growing and helping to improve the economy in Riverside County. I cannot understand WN's logic on not serving PSP and instead marketing ONT as a PSP gateway. Below is an excerpt from a letter written to a WN customer and Palm Springs local asking the mayor and city council for their help in getting WN to PSP.. Mayor Robert Moon wrote...
"Although we would love to add SW Airlines these efforts to date have been ineffective. However we do have a number of other airlines. A table of these airlines and their nonstop destinations is below. We just recently added daily nonstop flights to Newark, which is not yet shown on this table."

AIRLINES NONSTOP DESTINATIONS
AIR CANADA Toronto - Vancouver
ALASKA -(VIRGIN AMERICA) New York JFK - Portland - San Francisco - Seattle
ALLEGIANT Bellingham
AMERICAN Chicago - Dallas - Phoenix
DELTA / DELTA CONNECTION Minneapolis - Salt Lake City - Seattle
FRONTIER Denver
JETBLUE New York JFK
SUN COUNTRY Minneapolis
UNITED - UNITED EXPRESS Chicago - Denver - Houston - Los Angeles - Newark - San Francisco
WESTJET Calgary - Edmonton- Toronto - Vancouver - Winnipeg

I just think it's too seasonal and might dilute what they have at ONT. That's not based on anything other than personal opinion, and I enjoy Palm Springs personally so am not casting shade on PSP as an idea.

BMWdrvr75 wrote:

With the Coachella Valley growing and helping to improve the economy in Riverside County. I cannot understand WN's logic on not serving PSP and instead marketing ONT as a PSP gateway. Below is an excerpt from a letter written to a WN customer and Palm Springs local asking the mayor and city council for their help in getting WN to PSP.. Mayor Robert Moon wrote...
"Although we would love to add SW Airlines these efforts to date have been ineffective. However we do have a number of other airlines. A table of these airlines and their nonstop destinations is below. We just recently added daily nonstop flights to Newark, which is not yet shown on this table."

AIRLINES NONSTOP DESTINATIONS
AIR CANADA Toronto - Vancouver
ALASKA -(VIRGIN AMERICA) New York JFK - Portland - San Francisco - Seattle
ALLEGIANT Bellingham
AMERICAN Chicago - Dallas - Phoenix
DELTA / DELTA CONNECTION Minneapolis - Salt Lake City - Seattle
FRONTIER Denver
JETBLUE New York JFK
SUN COUNTRY Minneapolis
UNITED - UNITED EXPRESS Chicago - Denver - Houston - Los Angeles - Newark - San Francisco
WESTJET Calgary - Edmonton- Toronto - Vancouver - Winnipeg

Well good for this Mayor Moon, he’s got my vote. A very technical response.

What do you think a city/airport’s role is in obtaining air service?

Do you think that the city/airport hasn’t “marketed” itself enough to Southwest? What marketing would you suggest the city/airport do?

I believe landing fee as well as enplaning/deplaning per passenger fee in PSP is rather expensive.

additional response from Mayor Moon after a letter was send to Southwest Airlines...."Awesome! Our airport is ranked as one of the Top Ten Most Pleasant airports in the US. We get very few complaints, however one complaint I get constantly is the lack of SW airlines. It is a real hassle to have to go to Ontario to catch a SW flight, particularly on a Friday afternoon when the West bound traffic out of the Coachella Valley is crawling along I-10. Also, our State Senator and our two State Legislators from this area complain all the time that they have to drive back and forth from Ontario to fly to Sacramento."

Having SW Airlines would be a tremendous boost to the many residents in the nine cities of the Coachella Valley.

Rob Moon

SMF-PSP might make a nice regional market. Even 2x M-F and 1x on SaSu on an E175 or CR9. I'll throw in SMF-SBA and PSP-OAK just because. Hello, Alaska?

BMWdrvr75 wrote:

With the Coachella Valley growing and helping to improve the economy in Riverside County. I cannot understand WN's logic on not serving PSP and instead marketing ONT as a PSP gateway. Below is an excerpt from a letter written to a WN customer and Palm Springs local asking the mayor and city council for their help in getting WN to PSP.. Mayor Robert Moon wrote...
"Although we would love to add SW Airlines these efforts to date have been ineffective. However we do have a number of other airlines. A table of these airlines and their nonstop destinations is below. We just recently added daily nonstop flights to Newark, which is not yet shown on this table."

AIRLINES NONSTOP DESTINATIONS
AIR CANADA Toronto - Vancouver
ALASKA -(VIRGIN AMERICA) New York JFK - Portland - San Francisco - Seattle
ALLEGIANT Bellingham
AMERICAN Chicago - Dallas - Phoenix
DELTA / DELTA CONNECTION Minneapolis - Salt Lake City - Seattle
FRONTIER Denver
JETBLUE New York JFK
SUN COUNTRY Minneapolis
UNITED - UNITED EXPRESS Chicago - Denver - Houston - Los Angeles - Newark - San Francisco
WESTJET Calgary - Edmonton- Toronto - Vancouver - Winnipeg

That’s a great list, but how many of them only operate 6 months of the year or less? I would guess that SW would have to pull way, way back in the summer, possibly even eliminating service during those months. Are there any other places SW does that sort of thing?

September11 wrote:

I believe landing fee as well as enplaning/deplaning per passenger fee in PSP is rather expensive.

You believe wrong.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

SMF-PSP might make a nice regional market. Even 2x M-F and 1x on SaSu on an E175 or CR9. I'll throw in SMF-SBA and PSP-OAK just because. Hello, Alaska?

SMF-PSP isn’t served anymore?!

Spirit does not serve PSP. If they do, Southwest may join PSP? AirTran did not serve PSP.

jetero wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

SMF-PSP might make a nice regional market. Even 2x M-F and 1x on SaSu on an E175 or CR9. I'll throw in SMF-SBA and PSP-OAK just because. Hello, Alaska?

SMF-PSP isn’t served anymore?!

No.....and LAX is down to one or two flights day even in season...... However, with the rapid growth of the valley airlines are not cutting as much as in the past. Alaska and West Jet are the biggest carriers there...In season Air Canada operates a 767 three days a week..

jetero wrote:

September11 wrote:

I believe landing fee as well as enplaning/deplaning per passenger fee in PSP is rather expensive.

You believe wrong.

Or little higher than other airports of same size?

September11 wrote:

jetero wrote:

September11 wrote:

I believe landing fee as well as enplaning/deplaning per passenger fee in PSP is rather expensive.

You believe wrong.

Or little higher than other airports of same size?

More or less (we’re talking +/- $3 per passenger here). But that’s not the determining factor ... PSP does just fine revenue wise for 6-8 months per year, more than enough to offset that.

There's a lot more that goes into Network planning then most of you probably realize.

jetero wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

SMF-PSP might make a nice regional market. Even 2x M-F and 1x on SaSu on an E175 or CR9. I'll throw in SMF-SBA and PSP-OAK just because. Hello, Alaska?

SMF-PSP isn’t served anymore?!

QX flew it awhile back along with SJC-PSP and dropped it.

Could there possibly be a market for PSP-LAS? And wow didn't know United served PSP from most hubs

Not sure WN is refusing to "look" at PSP. If they really wanted to go full court press in CA against AS, they'd add FAT, PSP, SBA...all of which are on record to have discussions with regularly...as is almost every other US airport.

WN could always build up PSP during the winter and cutback ONT in the meantime and then switch the flights back to ONT when the season goes down.

But I know Sonny Bono terminal already has the current airlines tripping over each other for a gate during peak season. UA and AC both have planned expansions for this season too. The airport is currently working on a project to open up the ticketing area as it is currently way undersized for what it is handling.

One thing that I've always been a little confused at is how small G4 is. Being a huge leisure airline and being able to adjust to seasons very well, it seems like they'd be able to serve more than just BLI. Is it the PSP clientele that doesn't fit the G4 model?

platinumfoota wrote:

Could there possibly be a market for PSP-LAS? And wow didn't know United served PSP from most hubs

OO used to fly prorate flights with the EM2 but they were discontinued when those were retired.

I boarded a Southwest flight last week and picked up their inflight magazine. As usual, somewhere near the end of magazine portrays a map of cities they currently serve. "Get to PSP via ONT" is indicated on the map. Still, for years now. Maybe 10 years.

I didn't forget TWA used to fly STL-PSP-ONT then ONT-PSP-STL... Southwest could practice that if they are seriously considering PSP.

Busyboy2 wrote:

There's a lot more that goes into Network planning then most of you probably realize.

Thank you! Exactly!!

platinumfoota wrote:

Could there possibly be a market for PSP-LAS? And wow didn't know United served PSP from most hubs

I think HP flew PSP-LAS. America West Express.... I'm out

I sat next to someone Palm Springs bound on a WN flight to ONT on a Friday afternoon with a 6:30pm arrival. She had no idea the distance she still had remaining.

The SMF market may not be all that big from PSP since it is not the county seat. With all the destinations PSP has, I don't know if adding WN is a good idea. If WN drains enough DEN traffic to run UA off the route, the region could lose travelers who have a harder time getting there.

The major jet-distance markets to Palm Springs (not PSP, Palm Springs) are gonna be San Francisco and Seattle, with lesser traffic from Houston, Dallas and NYC. Some used to get to Palm Springs by other than flying to PSP, but I think that nonstop air has become the primary way to go. Given that Houston and Dallas (and Chicago) are all hubs, they can muster enough traffic to serve PSP.

Alaska used to have the market from SFO basically-cornered -- and I think had their own RNAV approach for times of day when it's tricky -- but as you can see other carriers now also serve it. Same thing with Seattle. It's pretty-amazing that PSP gets served by all the major carriers from more than one of their hubs. I don't enjoy taking the puddle jumper to SLC if I wanna take DL, although I have done it. When DL served ONT from JFK, I used to just bite the bullet and drive there despite the fact that I love, love, love little PSP. There's a puddle-jumper to LAX from PSP, but frankly if I'm gonna fly into LAX, I'm not going to pay for and wait for a connection when I can just jump in the car and, in the middle of the night, drive at excessive speeds to PSP and get to the hotel faster. In short, there is quite a bit of convenient air service to PSP in the season, and in the off-season, which I also like, there is still adequate-ish service, albeit very expensive service that makes one want just to fly to LAX and drive. And, like I say, plenty of flights from the primary origins like SFO and SEA.

Frankly, I am delighted that JetBlue's experiment with nonstop JFK service worked, and that United and Alaska now also serve PSP nonstop from JFK/EWR.

Of course, with the price of condos and such there now, there has been a sea change in the last 20 years to where more people live full-time in their units, and businesses that used to close during the hottest months now can generate enough customer volume to stay open year-round.

Southwest might be able to peel away some of the SFO and SEA traffic, and maybe generate some Dallas traffic, but I don't see what they can really add, and it certainly isn't going to be what the Mayor wants, which is frequent WN service to regular business destinations. Just not gonna happen.

Beardown91737 wrote:

I sat next to someone Palm Springs bound on a WN flight to ONT on a Friday afternoon with a 6:30pm arrival. She had no idea the distance she still had remaining.

The SMF market may not be all that big from PSP since it is not the county seat. With all the destinations PSP has, I don't know if adding WN is a good idea. If WN drains enough DEN traffic to run UA off the route, the region could lose travelers who have a harder time getting there.

Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!

strfyr51 wrote:

Beardown91737 wrote:

I sat next to someone Palm Springs bound on a WN flight to ONT on a Friday afternoon with a 6:30pm arrival. She had no idea the distance she still had remaining.

The SMF market may not be all that big from PSP since it is not the county seat. With all the destinations PSP has, I don't know if adding WN is a good idea. If WN drains enough DEN traffic to run UA off the route, the region could lose travelers who have a harder time getting there.

Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!

Take off the fanboy hat and look at financial results of the last few decades and try again.

Considering their website is closed to almost all non-American IP's I'm not all that surprised tbh.

I don’t mean for this to come off like I’m bashing WN but what is so special about getting WN service specifically? I know they offer the free checked bag thing which is a plus but what else? I’ve never flown WN but every time I’ve checked their ticket prices vs other carriers they’ve been as or more expensive than the other large network carriers on the routes I’ve researched.

Looking at the list of airlines and destinations serving PSP I would say it is very well served. What can WN offer that the carriers already serving PSP can’t ? Genuinely curious.

77H

Antarius wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Beardown91737 wrote:

I sat next to someone Palm Springs bound on a WN flight to ONT on a Friday afternoon with a 6:30pm arrival. She had no idea the distance she still had remaining.

The SMF market may not be all that big from PSP since it is not the county seat. With all the destinations PSP has, I don't know if adding WN is a good idea. If WN drains enough DEN traffic to run UA off the route, the region could lose travelers who have a harder time getting there.

Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!

Take off the fanboy hat and look at financial results of the last few decades and try again.

Can you cite any routes WN has run UA off of out of their hub markets? By that I mean, WN entered and UA left the market completely there after, not WN entered and UA reduced frequency or gauge.

If this hasn’t happened how can you label it being a fanboy?

77H

77H wrote:

I don’t mean for this to come off like I’m bashing WN but what is so special about getting WN service specifically? I know they offer the free checked bag thing which is a plus but what else? I’ve never flown WN but every time I’ve checked their ticket prices vs other carriers they’ve been as or more expensive than the other large network carriers on the routes I’ve researched.

Looking at the list of airlines and destinations serving PSP I would say it is very well served. What can WN offer that the carriers already serving PSP can’t ? Genuinely curious.

77H

WN has a loyal customer base in many non-legacy carrier hub markets in the contiguous U.S. such as ABQ, AUS, CMH, IND, MCI, LAS, SDF, MKE, BNA, MSY, SMF, STL, SAT, SAN, and TPA. WN also allows passengers to cancel flights and to apply the funds from cancelled flights towards future travel within 1 year of the original ticket purchase without having to pay cancellation or change fees. WN also doesn't charge change fees for passengers to change flights, although WN will charge for difference in fare if a higher fare is charged for the changed itinerary.

One thing that WN could offer that the carriers already serving PSP are unwilling to offer is SMF-PSP nonstop service. Another thing that WN can offer that the carriers already serving PSP can't offer is one-stop direct flights with no change of planes from some of the WN destinations that do not currently have nonstop service to PSP.

77H wrote:

Antarius wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!

Take off the fanboy hat and look at financial results of the last few decades and try again.

Can you cite any routes WN has run UA off of out of their hub markets? By that I mean, WN entered and UA left the market completely there after, not WN entered and UA reduced frequency or gauge.

If this hasn’t happened how can you label it being a fanboy?

77H

DEN-OAK

September11 wrote:

jetero wrote:

September11 wrote:

I believe landing fee as well as enplaning/deplaning per passenger fee in PSP is rather expensive.

You believe wrong.

Or little higher than other airports of same size?

Well, if the cheapskate airlines Allegiant and Frontier both serve PSP, then...I'm thinking it must not be expensive.

strfyr51 wrote:

Beardown91737 wrote:

I sat next to someone Palm Springs bound on a WN flight to ONT on a Friday afternoon with a 6:30pm arrival. She had no idea the distance she still had remaining.

The SMF market may not be all that big from PSP since it is not the county seat. With all the destinations PSP has, I don't know if adding WN is a good idea. If WN drains enough DEN traffic to run UA off the route, the region could lose travelers who have a harder time getting there.

Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!

Okay, the above poster may have been a bit exuberant in their declaration, however by and large it's true -- WN will not "run" UA off any route in Denver. The connection opportunities for the many communities in the Rockies and western Plains are robust enough to support UA, notwithstanding local O&D. A poster mentioned DEN-OAK -- do you know how expensive it is to operate a relatively 'niche' station? Gone (mostly) are the days where air carriers flew routes "just because" or even to maintain a token presence (domestically speaking); it's far wiser and more efficient to consolidate when possible and allow some redundancies where economically and operationally feasible (see the case of SJC).

Busyboy2 wrote:

There's a lot more that goes into Network planning then most of you probably realize.

there is no room at PSP for another airline. An airline I worked at for 11 years even looked at flying into PSP but they couldn't find reasonable space for them in the terminal, and the other airlines weren't able to ground handle them. We even proposed using a curbside check-in type counter.

(fyi, I was the one doing the negotations. PSP is NOT an expensive airport compared to others...)

September11 wrote:

I boarded a Southwest flight last week and picked up their inflight magazine. As usual, somewhere near the end of magazine portrays a map of cities they currently serve. "Get to PSP via ONT" is indicated on the map. Still, for years now. Maybe 10 years.

I didn't forget TWA used to fly STL-PSP-ONT then ONT-PSP-STL... Southwest could practice that if they are seriously considering PSP.

Airlines tend to not do tag on flights like that now. No airline in its right mind would fly ONT-PSP. It takes longer to go through security, board, and fly than to just drive the distance. Getting more passengers going through ONT drives down costs. People wanting to pay premium fares to PSP are already doing so.

flyfresno wrote:

That’s a great list, but how many of them only operate 6 months of the year or less? I would guess that SW would have to pull way, way back in the summer, possibly even eliminating service during those months. Are there any other places SW does that sort of thing?

Palm Springs sees a very extreme swing in O&D between the high and low months. PSP's variation in passenger numbers is even more extreme than what we see in Fresno at FAT. The low months at PSP are even lower O&D than FAT's low period.

PSP O&D By Month in 2017
Jan 2017 - 220,840
Feb 2017 - 254,157
Mar 2017 - 314,870
Apr 2017 - 245,020
May 2017 - 145,170
Jun 2017 - 87,978
Jul 2017 - 74,536
Aug 2017 - 76,752
Sep 2017 - 94,326
Oct 2017 - 156,570
Nov 2017 - 216,546
Dec 2017 - 213,307
Source:
http://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showdocument?id=57001

Take a minute to consider what airports are the busiest in California. This ranking was determined by 2016 enplanements (commercial passenger boardings) per FAA records released October 2017.

1) Los Angeles (LAX) 39,636,042
2) San Francisco (SFO) 25,707,101
3) San Diego (SAN) 10,340,164
4) Oakland (OAK) 5,934,639
5) San Jose (SJC) 5,321,603
6) Orange County (SNA) 5,217,242
7) Sacramento (SMF) 4,969,366
8) Ontario (ONT) 2,104,625
9) Burbank (BUR) 2,077,892
10) Long Beach (LGB) 1,386,357
11) Palm Springs (PSP) 995,801
12) Fresno (FAT) 761,298
13) Santa Barbara (SBA) 329,751
14) Monterey (MRY) 192,136
15) Santa Rosa (STS) 167,151

As far as WN is concerned, the top 9 Californian airports have been served for years. LGB had been the busiest Californian airport missing from the WN route map - until 2016, when WN started flying there too. That leaves PSP as the busiest, or shall we say most popular, airport in California that WN does not (yet) serve.

Given the strategic importance of California to WN, it is simply wrong to state that WN "refuses" to serve PSP. That may have been the case in the past, when any and every WN station was expected to support a minimum of 7-8 daily flights (year round), but the airline has shown a much greater willingness to serve markets at much lower frequency in recent years. If WN can manage ECP, a highly seasonal leisure market with a tiny local population and virtually no business demand, I'm sure they can figure out a way to make PSP work. Perhaps something like 2x daily OAK-PSP and 1x daily LAS-PSP year round, complemented by seasonal nonstop services like BWI/DAL/DEN/MDW-PSP during the much more popular winter and spring months. Events like Coachella, Stagecoach and White Party have national draw (and are becoming ever more popular) while Palm Springs itself is rapidly gentrifying. That said, the Coachella Valley remains one of the most affordable places in all of California to buy property or rent a hotel room.

As the Palm Springs area continues to move upmarket, gain interest across the country, and become more of a year round destination, PSP's airline service will continue to increase. WN may not be ready to serve PSP just yet, but once Hawaii comes online, I'm sure it will be right up there with BZN and SAV as a highly popular destination that WN can simply no longer ignore...

One problem listed up-thread was that, particularly in the peak months, WN would struggle to find adequate gate space. As nice as it sounds to just throw on service from a half dozen cities during peak, they have to have a place to put the planes. I'm not familiar with PSP so don't know how accurate that challenge may be, but I'd think PSP is just a unique situation. Maybe they'll figure out how to make it work?

PSP has 8 "mainline" gates and 8 "regional" gates

2 terminals, 16 gates

I don't think PSP fits well with WN's strategy. WN essentially picks places that have year round demand. They do offer seasonal services between markets but there needs to be at least one market served from the originating city that has sufficient year round demand for them to make it worth while to open a station there.

September11 wrote:

PSP has 8 "mainline" gates and 8 "regional" gates

2 terminals, 16 gates

Good information. Do we know which carriers use which gates, or are they CUTE?

Judge1310 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Beardown91737 wrote:

I sat next to someone Palm Springs bound on a WN flight to ONT on a Friday afternoon with a 6:30pm arrival. She had no idea the distance she still had remaining.

The SMF market may not be all that big from PSP since it is not the county seat. With all the destinations PSP has, I don't know if adding WN is a good idea. If WN drains enough DEN traffic to run UA off the route, the region could lose travelers who have a harder time getting there.

Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!

Okay, the above poster may have been a bit exuberant in their declaration, however by and large it's true -- WN will not "run" UA off any route in Denver. The connection opportunities for the many communities in the Rockies and western Plains are robust enough to support UA, notwithstanding local O&D. A poster mentioned DEN-OAK -- do you know how expensive it is to operate a relatively 'niche' station? Gone (mostly) are the days where air carriers flew routes "just because" or even to maintain a token presence (domestically speaking); it's far wiser and more efficient to consolidate when possible and allow some redundancies where economically and operationally feasible (see the case of SJC).

The last line of your post has me curious. Where are you going with that thought?

The thread title is misleading and most likely false. There is no indication that WN has "refused" to look at PSP. In fact I suspect the opposite is true, they are likely always looking at potential cities and routes to be added. Just because they've decided not to serve PSP doesn't mean they haven't looked at it. Most likely they have decided their is not enough return on investment to add service to PSP, and they are investing in growth elsewhere. As far as this being a smart decision, I will side with WN's management over an anonymous internet poster. No US airline even comes close to matching their 40 years of successful growth.

PSP just doesn't seem like a WN city given the wide seasonality, noted by the pax counts above, at least for now.

For ECP, didn't they get support from the city or local area to start there?

AirFiero wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Southwest Isn't going to Run United off of ANY route out of DENVER. Nor SFO nor anywhere ELSE!! You're Dreaming!!

Okay, the above poster may have been a bit exuberant in their declaration, however by and large it's true -- WN will not "run" UA off any route in Denver. The connection opportunities for the many communities in the Rockies and western Plains are robust enough to support UA, notwithstanding local O&D. A poster mentioned DEN-OAK -- do you know how expensive it is to operate a relatively 'niche' station? Gone (mostly) are the days where air carriers flew routes "just because" or even to maintain a token presence (domestically speaking); it's far wiser and more efficient to consolidate when possible and allow some redundancies where economically and operationally feasible (see the case of SJC).

The last line of your post has me curious. Where are you going with that thought?

Thank you for a proper way to continue a discussion.

It seems that when some folks (in the cases of WN and UA) enter the realm of market share, many see geographical proximity as the "end all, be all". I mentioned SJC because Silicon Valley can hold its own on flights by UA elsewhere (with respect to SFO). OAK, on the other hand *could* hold its own on some UA flights (EWR, ORD, IAH, IAD) but UA most likely knows that the numbers for such flights just don't work overall. It may seem incredulous for some on this forum, but SF East Bay folks have little problem taking a car ride/share to a BART station and paying the $ to get to SFO if it means getting from SFO to XYZ (random city) non-stop as it sure as heck beats taking the Bay Bridge during rush hour. That's all I was saying.

Its not gate space, its ticket counter/lobby size. There are no common use counters

With 'up to' 37 flights a day at ONT 71 miles away by toll-free interstate highway I don't think WN needs to rationalize its choice for the OP or mayor. What airports would they serve from PSP? Why? From what big WN cities could they plausibly fly?

MIflyer12 wrote:

With 'up to' 37 flights a day at ONT 71 miles away by toll-free interstate highway I don't think WN needs to rationalize its choice for the OP or mayor. What airports would they serve from PSP? Why? From what big WN cities could they plausibly fly?

A few ideas: DAL, DEN, PHX, HOU, PDX or AUS

They have a lot of cities that would be good connecting points for PSP. The question is whether they'd be able to fill a 737 at the revenue level that would warrant not using another airport.

Judge1310 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

Okay, the above poster may have been a bit exuberant in their declaration, however by and large it's true -- WN will not "run" UA off any route in Denver. The connection opportunities for the many communities in the Rockies and western Plains are robust enough to support UA, notwithstanding local O&D. A poster mentioned DEN-OAK -- do you know how expensive it is to operate a relatively 'niche' station? Gone (mostly) are the days where air carriers flew routes "just because" or even to maintain a token presence (domestically speaking); it's far wiser and more efficient to consolidate when possible and allow some redundancies where economically and operationally feasible (see the case of SJC).

The last line of your post has me curious. Where are you going with that thought?

Thank you for a proper way to continue a discussion.

It seems that when some folks (in the cases of WN and UA) enter the realm of market share, many see geographical proximity as the "end all, be all". I mentioned SJC because Silicon Valley can hold its own on flights by UA elsewhere (with respect to SFO). OAK, on the other hand *could* hold its own on some UA flights (EWR, ORD, IAH, IAD) but UA most likely knows that the numbers for such flights just don't work overall. It may seem incredulous for some on this forum, but SF East Bay folks have little problem taking a car ride/share to a BART station and paying the $ to get to SFO if it means getting from SFO to XYZ (random city) non-stop as it sure as heck beats taking the Bay Bridge during rush hour. That's all I was saying.

Understood, thanks.

The premise of this thread integues me. Is WN going to make more profit serving PSP or competing for the same customers at ONT, SAN, or LAX.

As noted before there has to be a ROI. Laying people off is expensive, so only hire if the business plan justifies.

Lightsaber