coolfish1103

Students begin their winter break around 7-10th of December so the trip plans are usually scheduled right after that, where the peak season begins.

I would say October had a highly unusual traffic for ONT cause I would not expect such a new route to have 80%++ during off peak. Maybe it has to do with the 7 > 5 weekly shrink causing those who already purchased tickets having to shift their flights.

Yeah the Skyteam Lounge at LAX is a joke. If CI just give what they use to offer in LAX or the current SFO lounge, it should be more than adequate. However, I think passengers will compare to the Star Alliance lounge that BR uses in LAX too (since that's still an option).

I think it's harder to convince one to dump BR if Star Alliance is their preferred alliance. It seems like BR didn't catch or lose much of their original LAX operation, so I guess the minor increase probably comes from those who preferred a day flight for business purposes. It's also possible that pax went for another airline as their preferred carrier. In general CI probably lost some pax from CI 7/8 and 5/6 to CI 23/24, and then some pax who use to fly CI 5/6 filled CI 7/8 and/or a BR flight. Not sure where the lost pax went?

I think 359 is a perfect mix for CI to operate this route, maybe sub 77W in during peak season. However, I think the pax count will increase if they change the 6 pm ex-TPE flight to a later period. The only good thing from this timing is you get to avoid most if not some of the LA traffic that starts at 3pm.

Imagine the current late night operations at LAX all move to ONT. We will have 4 wide body operating just to TPE and ONT is not going to be able to handle that. Not to say if you add other destinations like HKG or China to the scene.

bocastephen

It would definitely be complete chaos, but if CI, and perhaps BR and maybe one Chinese airline can demo good results, ONT will definitely make the investment for a proper international terminal that can handle expansion growth. Demographically, only Taiwan and China are good markets for ONT - the primary Korea and Japan markets are still in the LAX catchment, so the growth options for ONT to Asia are somewhat limited, however there are additional opportunities in Europe and South/Central America for the airport.

Remember the ONT catchment runs from the 605 to past Palm Springs, and from the high desert down into the Temecula Valley region - it's actually quite huge.

tris06

I could definately see another carrier not flying to Taiwan doing well and not affecting the viability of CIs operations. But if BR flys from ONT to TPE you can expect CI to lose quite a large number of passengers.

26volt

You have a point there. ONT had both AM and Y4 flying out to GDL. At first, both airliners were doing well with similar prices. However, Y4 began to price cut their fares to the extent it took most of AM's business leaving them no choice but leave ONT. Those who liked AM are still P.O. that it left ONT.

I could see a similar scenario occurring if CI becomes successful, though BR comes in and drives them out.

I remember someone at Airliners.net posting an article were the head of BR mentioned that BR and CI should not compete with each other, and instead have their own strategic 'strongholds' or something similar to that. Perhaps that could occur here. BR stays at LAX and CI keeps its split operation. Then, leaving whatever mainland airline wanting to move and try ONT.

Though, like I mentioned before in the thread who would be willing to move to ONT since some other airline forums mention that OIAA approached CA, and they told them, it wasn't viable since they did 'their studies' leaving the others as options. Though, thinking back who knows if this actually occurred since there's no verified information regarding OIAA approaching CA.

So, CA along with the rest could be options for ONT.

26volt

I've seen the chaos first hand when ONT had two GDL flights and one for MEX from AM and Y4. in 2015. Jesus, Terminal 2 at 10pm to almost 12am on Fri, Sat, and Sun nights was a mad house since the check in lines went from the arrival luggage area to the check in kiosk they shared with DL. Y4 and AM staff had to walk down the lines, giving people tags, and if they had an issue with their itinerary they were taken to the front of the line. Then, once that was done they had to wait on another line just to go through TSA to the extent all three flights left later than scheduled (all three flights were scheduled to depart within 30 to 45 minutes of each other)

I wanted to see CI operations now with the late night departures, and went on a Thursday night in early OCT. Noticed the same issue, though with CI's lines reaching to DL and Y4's check in area. (CI check in area is situated at the far right corner of the terminal next to UA while DL and Y4 are closer to the stairs going up to the TSA check area). I noticed DL staff walking down the line, helping CI staff since it was a bit too much for them. There saving grace, was that UA, B6, F9 had later departure times, so there wasn't long TSA lines, if not it would have been AM and Y4 all over again.

If another carries moves to ONT, they should work closely with OIAA to have equal distant departures for example CI keeps its departure time of 11pm, X airline departs at 12:30am and Y airline departs at 1:30 or 2am to avoid the usual Zoo seen at LAX.

Regarding Europe, Central and South America, if you go to ONT Facebook page, most people are clamoring for a mixture of more domestic and International flights. For example these destinations constantly pop up regarding International, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Mexico City, Vancouver, Montreal, Cancun, San Salvador, and Hong Kong. I wish ONT the best of luck in capturing others airlines and them be successful enough to start building that T2 extension.

Taipei

ONT location makes sense for Asian market, but there are many problems that make ONT air traffic lower. I wish ONT would have better domestic connections, or even better lower fares but it does not. It's sad see ONT passenger count down 25% from peak years while SNA/BUR/LGB traffic is at record levels (2017) as well as LAX. My two coworkers flew from FLL (Miami area) back to Taiwan via SoCal stopover it would been nice to fly into ONT but fare was double (FLL-LAX$150, vs $290 to ONT). This results in fewer domestic flights and thus fewer connections (quite a few people at LAX connect). Also terminal really needs improvement, no shopping, good places to eat ect, the KHH(Kaoshiung, Taiwan) airport really has better terminal for a smaller city. My two co workers are frequent flyers from Taiwan, 30ish year females who like lounges and duty free really like the new LAX terminal (I hate the traffic inside the loop though), so the bare ONT terminal is turn off.

coolfish1103

If OIAA does that then no one will want to enter this market cause the timing for the flight is extremely important.

CI has definitely been avoiding most of BR's routes, but I am not sure if that's what BR plans. It seems like they have been avoiding each other's core market the past few years, but back in the days BR always venture into well established CI markets. Not good for the passengers if they don't compete, though..

The last flight that goes direct in competition with BR is starting an afternoon flight at SFO, which ended shortly. Then the next one was direct flight to LGW (which to be honest shares very different market from TPE-BKK-LHR). In the bigger picture, CI is mostly investing in Europe and Oceania while BR is situated in North America. Though, things may change with BR's 787 coming in to play.

tris06

I agree there is probably an unoffical agreement not to hurt each others profitability but if management changes or if BR runs out of new routes to send planes in North America then they will compete in other areas. There is 1 route you missed that BR Did increase the competition recently and that is Vienna. It is true that competition is good for passengers but if the route is weak which most long hual international routes out of TPE are I think intense competition will drive one carrier out. The situation now is good enough in that both carriers are almost equal in size. If BR was to become dominant then competition would start to reduce. While CI is government owned apart from some core routes (historical usually) CI will drop a route that does not maintain a profit.

krispykrme

coolfish1103

Erm, what? I'm not sure why you quoted me on this but...

Currently the Italian bilateral has rights for BR (2 weekly), but BR is not utilizing it, so there are rights for BR to utilize. They can also apply the rights that CI is not using, but they did not.

When CI stopped operating the direct flight for London, BR was also allowed to ask for the rights (that was numerous years). They did not.

Also, there are lots of rights to be utilized in Oceania, but BR only kept Brisbane.

I am not sure why you are talking about CI's accident or how the Taiwanese feel, that is not the topic we are discussing here. Also, we never said anything about BR's loading is not good for SFO (but this specific month is actually not good) or if they are more expensive or cheaper than CI.

tris06

Yeah sounds like a rant Coolfish. While CIs history still means something currently it is becoming less important with time, give it another 10 years and those accidents will not even influence Airline safety rankings at all as I think it is a 30yr consideration. I do think markets only serviced by CI for many years will mean it is harder for BR to grow into that route especially if the route is thin.

BR had a golden age against CI, when CI was running A340s and B747s for a good 5-8yrs when BR had the B777Ws. That not be anywhere as Easy as it was. BR has a huge fleet of those Boeings which are now less economical than the A350s and the B787s on order are only equally as good as the A350s. So there won't be that huge advantage they enjoyed before.

Taiwanese I think some don't like some like. But that is no different than any other place.

Anyway my rant done. This thread is about the ONT-TPE route not SFO or etc.

bzcat

ONT is good for O&D VFR to Asia, not for connecting passengers or business travelers. LAX is good for all 3 groups so LAX is going to dominate flights to Asia for a long time to come. There is no changing that. There is no way I can convince any of the executives from my company to travel to Asia from ONT, even for those that live in OC or SGV. If the company is paying, they all want to fly from LAX. But I'm sure they don't mind buying deep discount Y from ONT if they are going on vacation in Thailand or something like that.

Two things we don't know about CI's ONT ops:

1. How much subsidy they got from OIAA.
2. How much cargo revenue they are losing by going down 40% of 777 belly space ex-LAX.

The first is important and will be interesting to see if ONT yield improves. To offset the higher fixed costs of split ops between LAX and ONT, I believe CI will have to generate higher yield ex-ONT in the long run once subsidy runs out. So far, I'm not really seeing higher fares ex-ONT vs. ex-LAX. The lower operating cost of A350 surely helps but not sure how much. 77W also has more PE seats which actually drives a lot of revenue.

The second factor is a bit fuzzy. Maybe CI has more than enough 777 belly space on the remaining LAX flights to take care of business. And the 747F still comes daily. And the net reduction in cargo space may even help push up rates ex-LAX. The only thing for sure is there is virtually no cargo revenue ex-ONT. None of the big freight consolidators in LA want to touch that business because it is logistically a nightmare to truck everything to/from LAX to ONT.

hayzel7773

1. The subsidy was free landing and parking fees for a year, though it was rumored that it had been extended an additional year when they did daily service.

26volt

We'll see if those rumors pan out soon since the year anniversary is quickly coming up and their back to daily service since late OCT.

username

I think if BR could not / would not make EWR/JFK split work, they probably would not split LAX service. On the BR forum, people are hoping for SJC service...

There is still some strong feelings toward both BR and CI whether based on safety, politics or service/product quality. Safety concerns will fade over time if both airlines remain accident-free. Politics changes with time - BR was viewed as pro-DPP but then anti-DPP and CI really depends on which party is in power. Then there is the shallow argument on whose flight attendants are prettier...