Originally Posted by
BearX220
They can fix dumb fleet utilization.
As I mentioned, this is their biggest problem. They have too many planes flying for too many hours in the day on low cycle routes. This in turn translates into too few pax within the system.
Originally Posted by
BearX220
They can add frequency on profitable trunk routes / city pairs rather than fooling around with low-yield leisure routes that will never pay off.
I agree. Routes like PVR, MCO, and FLL are a waste of an airplane for low yielding destinations.
Originally Posted by
BearX220
After that, if they have the fleet strength to open new stations, they can focus on second-tier cities suffering from single-airline tyranny or general lack of service: PDX, MSP, MEM, MSY, CVG, STL, CMH.
That doesn't solve their utilization issue though. Other than PDX, those routes have long stage lengths as well. VX should focus on intra-west routes where their aircraft can achieve a higher number of cycles per day. PHX/TUS, PDX, DEN, SLC, ABQ are good candidates.
Originally Posted by
BearX220
They can start more point-to-point transcons rather that funneling west coast pax through delay-prone SFO.
They will need a mid-country hub at some point. STL seems like the best candidate.
Originally Posted by
BearX220
They can fix their worthless FF program and target-market angry UA and DL loyalists who are open to changing their flying strategy.
^
This combined with no PHX flights keeps me from choosing VX.