More regional planes operating on mainline routes
Jul 5, 2017, 8:18 am
#61
Join Date: May 2015
Location: DCA
Programs: AA EXP, DL FO, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 6,712
You're the first person to advocate for further consolidation in the airline industry. No one else (except airline execs) think it's a good idea for the major airlines to have their own fiefdoms.
So you hate HVN. You hate DCA, and by the same "logic" I assume this means you hate DAL as well (AA would be thrilled at seeing DAL shut down). Should BUR, ONT and SNA be shut down too since everyone can just fly to LAX?
Anyone who lives in a not-big city can go pound sand and drive or take the bus hundreds of miles to the nearest big city airport (may as well just keep driving to your destination). Or just not go at all because the time involved is way too much.
This thread has gone off the rails. I give up!
So you hate HVN. You hate DCA, and by the same "logic" I assume this means you hate DAL as well (AA would be thrilled at seeing DAL shut down). Should BUR, ONT and SNA be shut down too since everyone can just fly to LAX?
Anyone who lives in a not-big city can go pound sand and drive or take the bus hundreds of miles to the nearest big city airport (may as well just keep driving to your destination). Or just not go at all because the time involved is way too much.
This thread has gone off the rails. I give up!
Jul 5, 2017, 10:10 am
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,573
Any decent sized airport can sustain at least a handful of mainline flights per day to somewhere, and once you get to a focus city or hub, there are lots of connection options. Some longer routes dwindle down to 2 flights per day, which is fine, since you're making a connection for a much longer trip.
AS does have this problem with certain airports like JNU, although they could just re-time the flights to make more sense, as opposed to adding more flights.
Per my earlier comment, reducing the frequency of flights means my connection times likely go up significantly. Give me a direct regional to regional, or a short connection. I do not want to spend an entire day getting somewhere they should take 2 hours as the crow flies. It's absurd. 'Re-timing' flights means they work for some, not others. Adding flights mean they work for more people. Small regional airports can handle lots of flights a day, without having to schlep to somewhere further away, that is busier, where security takes longer, and processes are not as efficient.
1. The WN boarding process is faster. Part of it is simplifying it with allowing you to choose any seat you want, and part of it is the two free checked bags, so that there isn't so much crap in the cabin. Yes, people sometimes are dumb about it, but the old assigned seat model forces people to find their exact seat, which introduces a different inefficiency into the process.
2. You missed part of the the point there. Part of the point is that they aren't nickel and diming you to death after you already paid for your ticket, but part of the point is that the boarding is faster, and if you want to do carry-on, you're not fighting for bin space like it's the last glass of water in the desert, because many people don't really care, and will just check bags if it's free, getting them out of the cabin. A WN 7H4 with the old bins where bags have to go sideways almost never has problems with carry-ons, while DL planes that have bins where bags can go long ways are often completely crammed full.
WN is not faster when you fly routes with families. Watching them board, find seats, negotiate with other passengers is downright painful. Yes, if you are all single business travelers used to WN, perhaps. But if you are groups used to assigned seats, pre-booking so you can sit together, etc. it is much slower. I've yet to encounter someone who can't work out where 22A is, either by themselves or, as you find on more tourist routes, the cabin crew at the door saying 'it's half way down on the right, window seat'.
In terms of carry on - again, if you are flying a tourist route, people are bringing the kitchen sinks in carry on but if you fly a business route, most travelers have their routine down, and have carry ons that fit in whatever the aircraft allows. If you want to get really efficient, then you go with neither of those methods, and use what Lufthansa and other European lines use on their regionals - you leave your rollaboard at the bottom of the steps, and pick it up from the same place as you leave (none of this luggage carousel nonsense for gate check like you have in the US) Far more efficient, and speeds up boarding (to your assigned seat) greatly.
WN flies to Fort Lauderdale and Charleston. DCA is an odd animal. The only reason the federal government didn't shut it down after 9/11 is because the congress critters want to fly there. From a security or efficiency standpoint, it makes no sense. A direct Metro connection for BWI in addition to the one currently being constructed for IAD is what makes sense, with the closure of DCA as part of that process. The congress critters will never allow it though.
DCA is fantastically located, getting into the city takes a few minutes. There is zero way, even if you build a metro extension, that I would rather fly into the other two. Not a chance. I wouldn't mind better facilities / food, but it is incredibly efficient timing wise, including check in, checking and claiming bags, and and security wise whenever I have flown in/out of there.
I know of a lot of people who go down to Charleston or Myrtle Beach or wherever, from CT and MA, and they do not fly. They road trip it down for the week, with an SUV full of crap and a bunch of people. Maybe they'd lose a few high net worth individuals in terms of frequency, but in terms of numbers, there would be virtually no difference for somewhere like Myrtle Beach. The driver of their traffic, pun intended, is how big and uncongested a highway you can build to their beach.
Again, I said weekend. There are tons of people who go for the weekend, either to join family who are there all season, or with their family for a quick break. I have a colleague who goes down every other week from Easter to Thanksgiving, mainly to golf. No one from here is driving down on a regular basis or for a weekend.
I value the efficiency of the entire system for everyone, not the shortest route for a few at the expense of the many.
AS does have this problem with certain airports like JNU, although they could just re-time the flights to make more sense, as opposed to adding more flights.
Per my earlier comment, reducing the frequency of flights means my connection times likely go up significantly. Give me a direct regional to regional, or a short connection. I do not want to spend an entire day getting somewhere they should take 2 hours as the crow flies. It's absurd. 'Re-timing' flights means they work for some, not others. Adding flights mean they work for more people. Small regional airports can handle lots of flights a day, without having to schlep to somewhere further away, that is busier, where security takes longer, and processes are not as efficient.
1. The WN boarding process is faster. Part of it is simplifying it with allowing you to choose any seat you want, and part of it is the two free checked bags, so that there isn't so much crap in the cabin. Yes, people sometimes are dumb about it, but the old assigned seat model forces people to find their exact seat, which introduces a different inefficiency into the process.
2. You missed part of the the point there. Part of the point is that they aren't nickel and diming you to death after you already paid for your ticket, but part of the point is that the boarding is faster, and if you want to do carry-on, you're not fighting for bin space like it's the last glass of water in the desert, because many people don't really care, and will just check bags if it's free, getting them out of the cabin. A WN 7H4 with the old bins where bags have to go sideways almost never has problems with carry-ons, while DL planes that have bins where bags can go long ways are often completely crammed full.
WN is not faster when you fly routes with families. Watching them board, find seats, negotiate with other passengers is downright painful. Yes, if you are all single business travelers used to WN, perhaps. But if you are groups used to assigned seats, pre-booking so you can sit together, etc. it is much slower. I've yet to encounter someone who can't work out where 22A is, either by themselves or, as you find on more tourist routes, the cabin crew at the door saying 'it's half way down on the right, window seat'.
In terms of carry on - again, if you are flying a tourist route, people are bringing the kitchen sinks in carry on but if you fly a business route, most travelers have their routine down, and have carry ons that fit in whatever the aircraft allows. If you want to get really efficient, then you go with neither of those methods, and use what Lufthansa and other European lines use on their regionals - you leave your rollaboard at the bottom of the steps, and pick it up from the same place as you leave (none of this luggage carousel nonsense for gate check like you have in the US) Far more efficient, and speeds up boarding (to your assigned seat) greatly.
WN flies to Fort Lauderdale and Charleston. DCA is an odd animal. The only reason the federal government didn't shut it down after 9/11 is because the congress critters want to fly there. From a security or efficiency standpoint, it makes no sense. A direct Metro connection for BWI in addition to the one currently being constructed for IAD is what makes sense, with the closure of DCA as part of that process. The congress critters will never allow it though.
DCA is fantastically located, getting into the city takes a few minutes. There is zero way, even if you build a metro extension, that I would rather fly into the other two. Not a chance. I wouldn't mind better facilities / food, but it is incredibly efficient timing wise, including check in, checking and claiming bags, and and security wise whenever I have flown in/out of there.
I know of a lot of people who go down to Charleston or Myrtle Beach or wherever, from CT and MA, and they do not fly. They road trip it down for the week, with an SUV full of crap and a bunch of people. Maybe they'd lose a few high net worth individuals in terms of frequency, but in terms of numbers, there would be virtually no difference for somewhere like Myrtle Beach. The driver of their traffic, pun intended, is how big and uncongested a highway you can build to their beach.
Again, I said weekend. There are tons of people who go for the weekend, either to join family who are there all season, or with their family for a quick break. I have a colleague who goes down every other week from Easter to Thanksgiving, mainly to golf. No one from here is driving down on a regular basis or for a weekend.
I value the efficiency of the entire system for everyone, not the shortest route for a few at the expense of the many.
Small, 'regional' airports are an efficiency blessing for many of us. I can leave my office 45 minutes before my flight, hop in a cab, arrive at the small regional airport, be through security, grab a free coffee and snack, and board the plane without stress or fuss, domestic or international. The transit time (cab, or train) to the nearest 'mainline' airport is 45+ just by itself.
All the planes that fly out of my regional airport are props, and they work very well. They are comfortable. They offer free snacks, beer, wine and soft drinks. There are no middle seats. They have 32-34 inches pitch. They can be a little noisy depending on where you sit, but my Bose handles it perfectly well.
Jul 5, 2017, 12:00 pm
#63
Join Date: May 2016
Location: ATL
Programs: DL GM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 1,240
I also really value regional airports as well as secondary airports in large metropolitan areas. For a few years, I was doing a lot of flying around upstate NY, and it was definitely easier to be able to get to a small airport in under an hour via taxi, versus renting a car and driving 2+ hours to get to somewhere like SYR or 4+ hours to New York City. Also, I loved the customer experience - I could show up 45 min before the flight, after a couple flights in an out I'd know the gate agents. Much nicer experience than the large hubs (Heck, there's a part of me that actually started enjoying those US Airways Dash-8s after a while...)
Flying without status, I also actually really like the gate valet bags on smaller regional planes, which I think was actually more efficient. I didn't have to worry that we'd be delayed because lots of people would be going up and down the aisle looking for overhead bin space, nor did I have to worry about people rushing the gate to claim precious overhead bag space. And I didn't have to worry about gate checking to my final destination for myself. Seems like a win-win-win. And on a small flight they were really efficient about getting bags off, never had to wait more than 3 or 4 minutes on the tarmac or in the jetway to get my bag back.
Now that I'm doing a lot of intra-California flights, I really value having secondary airports to fly into (LAX/SNA/LGB/BUR/ONT or SFO/OAK/SJC). I frequently fly WN, but I'm not sure your argument makes sense there. Even if you got rid of all the regional flights at SFO and LAX, I still wouldn't want to flight in and out of there. I really value having options that mean my O/D are not at major airports, but still give me access to major metropolitan areas, as it makes it easier to get through check in, security, etc. Also other airports besides SFO and LAX are often closer and more convenient to where I need to go to.
Flying without status, I also actually really like the gate valet bags on smaller regional planes, which I think was actually more efficient. I didn't have to worry that we'd be delayed because lots of people would be going up and down the aisle looking for overhead bin space, nor did I have to worry about people rushing the gate to claim precious overhead bag space. And I didn't have to worry about gate checking to my final destination for myself. Seems like a win-win-win. And on a small flight they were really efficient about getting bags off, never had to wait more than 3 or 4 minutes on the tarmac or in the jetway to get my bag back.
Now that I'm doing a lot of intra-California flights, I really value having secondary airports to fly into (LAX/SNA/LGB/BUR/ONT or SFO/OAK/SJC). I frequently fly WN, but I'm not sure your argument makes sense there. Even if you got rid of all the regional flights at SFO and LAX, I still wouldn't want to flight in and out of there. I really value having options that mean my O/D are not at major airports, but still give me access to major metropolitan areas, as it makes it easier to get through check in, security, etc. Also other airports besides SFO and LAX are often closer and more convenient to where I need to go to.
Last edited by ryw; Jul 5, 2017 at 5:23 pm Reason: typo
Jul 5, 2017, 4:12 pm
#64
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Long Beach, CA
Programs: AA PLTPRO, HH Diamond, IHG Plat, Marriott Plat, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 3,559
I agree with ryw's post above.
I live near LGB and would much rather take an AA CR9 than mainline LAX-PHX. By the OP's theory, I must drive to LAX and crowd into a 737. That whole process of driving to LAX, parking the car, heading to the gate, boarding, and taxiing for take-off can take longer than the entire flight from LGB.
I was trying to abstain from posting in this thread, but it's just gotten ridiculous. It's reminding me of this one in OMNI: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/...-approach.html
I live near LGB and would much rather take an AA CR9 than mainline LAX-PHX. By the OP's theory, I must drive to LAX and crowd into a 737. That whole process of driving to LAX, parking the car, heading to the gate, boarding, and taxiing for take-off can take longer than the entire flight from LGB.
I was trying to abstain from posting in this thread, but it's just gotten ridiculous. It's reminding me of this one in OMNI: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/...-approach.html
Jul 5, 2017, 10:34 pm
#65
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Between BDL and PVD
Programs: RapidRewards, SkyPesos, whatever flies where I want to go.
Posts: 270
So you hate HVN. You hate DCA, and by the same "logic" I assume this means you hate DAL as well (AA would be thrilled at seeing DAL shut down). Should BUR, ONT and SNA be shut down too since everyone can just fly to LAX?
Anyone who lives in a not-big city can go pound sand and drive or take the bus hundreds of miles to the nearest big city airport (may as well just keep driving to your destination). Or just not go at all because the time involved is way too much.
They go hand in hand. First of all, I want real mainline air service on real mainline metal, but yes, I also want less congestion. The congestion that the airlines have arbitrarily manufactured by flying tiny planes all over the place is ridiculous.
Airlines employ people to offer the best cost efficiency they can, and they know the regional model works. Mainline flights pay their crew more. Large airports charge far higher landing and handling fees than regional ones (as a rule). Flying from Hicksville to One Pony direct, they have worked out costs them less than routing them on more expensive mainline aircraft through expensive cities. I am not sure why you think all of these airlines are wrong, and you are right. WN identified a gap and filled it, but to say their model is the only right way is like saying why have sit down restaurants when McDonalds drive thru works?
WN is not filling a "gap". They are the largest US domestic airline by a pretty significant margin. They are a couple of daily flights away from being the largest airline in the world, PERIOD. That's pretty impressive considering that they don't even fly to Asia. Or Europe. Or South America.
Meanwhile, there are books out about WN's success, and anyone can just jump on a flight and see how they are cutting waste out of the process, but the other legacies have their heads buried in the sand. NK and F9 took notice, and asked a lot of tough questions about how they could take WN's model to a farther extreme, and possibly carve out a corner of the market for themselves. That's innovative thinking. That's competition. I don't agree with everything that they've done, but you can't fault them for not innovating and re-thinking the way things are done. Meanwhile, DL, AA, and UA can't get out of their own way to even just copy what WN is doing. They don't seem to be able to comprehend how inefficient and wasteful their systems are. Whether it's hub congestion and toy planes flying to rinky-dink-a-doo airports, or charging for checked bags, or assigning seats, or having first class seats, or change fees or whatever, they just don't get it. Or the customer experience. The FAs on the legacies are generally cold and sometimes rude, while WN's are generally fun and engaging, and don't all look like retired models. They're creating a whole generation of travelers who will "just go Southwest" when possible.
Small, 'regional' airports are an efficiency blessing for many of us. I can leave my office 45 minutes before my flight, hop in a cab, arrive at the small regional airport, be through security, grab a free coffee and snack, and board the plane without stress or fuss, domestic or international. The transit time (cab, or train) to the nearest 'mainline' airport is 45+ just by itself.
All the planes that fly out of my regional airport are props, and they work very well. They are comfortable. They offer free snacks, beer, wine and soft drinks. There are no middle seats. They have 32-34 inches pitch. They can be a little noisy depending on where you sit, but my Bose handles it perfectly well.
Last edited by BiggAW; Jul 5, 2017 at 10:37 pm Reason: Clarification
Jul 5, 2017, 10:35 pm
#66
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Between BDL and PVD
Programs: RapidRewards, SkyPesos, whatever flies where I want to go.
Posts: 270
I also really value regional airports as well as secondary airports in large metropolitan areas. For a few years, I was doing a lot of flying around upstate NY, and it was definitely easier to be able to get to a small airport in under an hour via taxi, versus renting a car and driving 2+ hours to get to somewhere like SYR or 4+ hours to New York City.
Flying without status, I also actually really like the gate valet bags on smaller regional planes, which I think was actually more efficient. I didn't have to worry that we'd be delayed because lots of people would be going up and down the aisle looking for overhead bin space, nor did I have to worry about people rushing the gate to claim precious overhead bag space.
Now that I'm doing a lot of intra-California flights, I really value having secondary airports to fly into (LAX/SNA/LGB/BUR/ONT or SFO/OAK/SJC). I frequently fly WN, but I'm not sure your argument makes sense there. Even if you got rid of all the regional flights at SFO and LAX, I still wouldn't want to flight in and out of there. I really value having options that mean my O/D are not at major airports, but still give me access to major metropolitan areas, as it makes it easier to get through check in, security, etc. Also other airports besides SFO and LAX are often closer and more convenient to where I need to go to.
I live near LGB and would much rather take an AA CR9 than mainline LAX-PHX. By the OP's theory, I must drive to LAX and crowd into a 737. That whole process of driving to LAX, parking the car, heading to the gate, boarding, and taxiing for take-off can take longer than the entire flight from LGB.
Jul 6, 2017, 11:29 am
#67
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: CMH
Programs: BA Gold, AA Plat, NK $9 fare club
Posts: 666
So between the 2013 thread and now this thread, are we saying now...
Beating the dead horse?
Anyway, frequencies are nice when I fly into the USA from Europe and sometimes customs & immigration facilities are absolutely jammed. I have missed flights before, but then with higher frequencies have gotten booked on a new flight! Very convenient.
Immigration at the MIA can be very busy. Better than having to spend extra night in Miami. I am pretty tired by that time, lots of flight hours and ready to get to my destination and getting some dinner.
So yes, beating the dead horse.
Also nothing wrong with private aviation...
Beating the dead horse?
Anyway, frequencies are nice when I fly into the USA from Europe and sometimes customs & immigration facilities are absolutely jammed. I have missed flights before, but then with higher frequencies have gotten booked on a new flight! Very convenient.
Immigration at the MIA can be very busy. Better than having to spend extra night in Miami. I am pretty tired by that time, lots of flight hours and ready to get to my destination and getting some dinner.
So yes, beating the dead horse.
Also nothing wrong with private aviation...
Jul 6, 2017, 2:43 pm
#68
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,573
They go hand in hand. First of all, I want real mainline air service on real mainline metal, but yes, I also want less congestion. The congestion that the airlines have arbitrarily manufactured by flying tiny planes all over the place is ridiculous.
If there are 100 airports in the US, and you cut that number to, say 40 'mainline' airports, exactly how does that ease congestion? You will have people who were quite happy flying from small town A to small town B, and instead you are making them drive to big city C, to fly to big city D. So instead of keeping the big city airports out of the mix by flying Bob on a small jet or prop, you are increasing the number of people having to go through C and D, increasing the number of people having to go through security, making it take much longer for everyone who used to fly from C and D. Kind of like the #$&* show that I have to deal with when I fly through places like LAX and MIA because the infrastructure is not capable of dealing with the number of people.
Except that each airline has clogged up its own hub. You'd think someone around there would figure out that they've made a mess out of their own system. If they would go in an consolidate flights, prune out destinations, and focus on eliminating waste from the system, they could get more out of their metal and reduce or eliminate congestion from their big hubs. So JFK is so expensive, and yet DL flies swarms of little toy jets there? JFK is too valuable of real estate to be wasting slots on 75-seat jets. The smallest thing going into NYC should be 134 seats, with many being much larger than that. Why is a toy jet from god knows where allowed to clog the line up for the big 777's and the like that are flying to places all over the globe?
Because the airline can easily sell a flight from Smalltown A - JFK - International B for a ticket price that makes sense to them and their profit model. Small town A may have 30 people want to go to NY, 15 people wanting to go to London, 10 people wanting to go to Tokyo, 5 people wanting to go to Rome, and 15 people going on to other US destinations who are prepared to fly a connecting route through JFK. The airline knows if it doesn't get people to JFK they won't get the revenue for the London, Tokyo, Rome routes. The 15 domestic and 30 NY passengers help make the route cost viable. The 75 seater plane isn't the relevant part to them, it is the onward international connections that they wouldn't have if they didn't fly to a large city. Either people would fly a different airline, or not travel to those places at all (I can easily name a dozen places I have not gone to, purely because the flight times / routes did not work) If you add up the 'toy jets' from small towns A-Z, you fill your 500 seat aircraft flying internationally. If you don't then you won't fill them, and the routes to London, Rome, Tokyo become a) more expensive b) less frequent c) not viable. So yes, maybe you solve your congestion, but I suspect not in the way you think. No point having an airport sitting empty because running their international routes isn't viable without the feeder traffic.
Meanwhile, there are books out about WN's success, and anyone can just jump on a flight and see how they are cutting waste out of the process, but the other legacies have their heads buried in the sand. I don't agree with everything that they've done, but you can't fault them for not innovating and re-thinking the way things are done. Meanwhile, DL, AA, and UA can't get out of their own way to even just copy what WN is doing. They don't seem to be able to comprehend how inefficient and wasteful their systems are. Whether it's hub congestion and toy planes flying to rinky-dink-a-doo airports, or charging for checked bags, or assigning seats, or having first class seats, or change fees or whatever, they just don't get it. Or the customer experience. The FAs on the legacies are generally cold and sometimes rude, while WN's are generally fun and engaging, and don't all look like retired models. They're creating a whole generation of travelers who will "just go Southwest" when possible.
And that's I chose to fly with their competition, because 'cutting waste' is not the way I prefer to fly. I like being able to pre book my seat, I like having food and drink on my flights, I like seat back screens, I like a glass of wine, I like not having to worry about when I check in for my flight. If I am flying longer distances, I like flying in business or first class, extra legroom and lie flat beds. The legacy airlines absolutely 'get it' for customers like me, who doesn't need my cabin crew to be 'fun', and it is very rare anyone is ever rude to me on board a flight - of the last 20 North American flights I have taken, I can't think of one where cabin crew were rude to me, they were professional and polite.
Ugh. That's even worse than toy jets. Clearly your airport needs to be cut off the map, since it can't generate mainline traffic, and you even admit that you have a mainline airport close to you. Where are you located?
If there are 100 airports in the US, and you cut that number to, say 40 'mainline' airports, exactly how does that ease congestion? You will have people who were quite happy flying from small town A to small town B, and instead you are making them drive to big city C, to fly to big city D. So instead of keeping the big city airports out of the mix by flying Bob on a small jet or prop, you are increasing the number of people having to go through C and D, increasing the number of people having to go through security, making it take much longer for everyone who used to fly from C and D. Kind of like the #$&* show that I have to deal with when I fly through places like LAX and MIA because the infrastructure is not capable of dealing with the number of people.
Except that each airline has clogged up its own hub. You'd think someone around there would figure out that they've made a mess out of their own system. If they would go in an consolidate flights, prune out destinations, and focus on eliminating waste from the system, they could get more out of their metal and reduce or eliminate congestion from their big hubs. So JFK is so expensive, and yet DL flies swarms of little toy jets there? JFK is too valuable of real estate to be wasting slots on 75-seat jets. The smallest thing going into NYC should be 134 seats, with many being much larger than that. Why is a toy jet from god knows where allowed to clog the line up for the big 777's and the like that are flying to places all over the globe?
Because the airline can easily sell a flight from Smalltown A - JFK - International B for a ticket price that makes sense to them and their profit model. Small town A may have 30 people want to go to NY, 15 people wanting to go to London, 10 people wanting to go to Tokyo, 5 people wanting to go to Rome, and 15 people going on to other US destinations who are prepared to fly a connecting route through JFK. The airline knows if it doesn't get people to JFK they won't get the revenue for the London, Tokyo, Rome routes. The 15 domestic and 30 NY passengers help make the route cost viable. The 75 seater plane isn't the relevant part to them, it is the onward international connections that they wouldn't have if they didn't fly to a large city. Either people would fly a different airline, or not travel to those places at all (I can easily name a dozen places I have not gone to, purely because the flight times / routes did not work) If you add up the 'toy jets' from small towns A-Z, you fill your 500 seat aircraft flying internationally. If you don't then you won't fill them, and the routes to London, Rome, Tokyo become a) more expensive b) less frequent c) not viable. So yes, maybe you solve your congestion, but I suspect not in the way you think. No point having an airport sitting empty because running their international routes isn't viable without the feeder traffic.
Meanwhile, there are books out about WN's success, and anyone can just jump on a flight and see how they are cutting waste out of the process, but the other legacies have their heads buried in the sand. I don't agree with everything that they've done, but you can't fault them for not innovating and re-thinking the way things are done. Meanwhile, DL, AA, and UA can't get out of their own way to even just copy what WN is doing. They don't seem to be able to comprehend how inefficient and wasteful their systems are. Whether it's hub congestion and toy planes flying to rinky-dink-a-doo airports, or charging for checked bags, or assigning seats, or having first class seats, or change fees or whatever, they just don't get it. Or the customer experience. The FAs on the legacies are generally cold and sometimes rude, while WN's are generally fun and engaging, and don't all look like retired models. They're creating a whole generation of travelers who will "just go Southwest" when possible.
And that's I chose to fly with their competition, because 'cutting waste' is not the way I prefer to fly. I like being able to pre book my seat, I like having food and drink on my flights, I like seat back screens, I like a glass of wine, I like not having to worry about when I check in for my flight. If I am flying longer distances, I like flying in business or first class, extra legroom and lie flat beds. The legacy airlines absolutely 'get it' for customers like me, who doesn't need my cabin crew to be 'fun', and it is very rare anyone is ever rude to me on board a flight - of the last 20 North American flights I have taken, I can't think of one where cabin crew were rude to me, they were professional and polite.
Ugh. That's even worse than toy jets. Clearly your airport needs to be cut off the map, since it can't generate mainline traffic, and you even admit that you have a mainline airport close to you. Where are you located?
Jul 6, 2017, 6:43 pm
#69
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Between BDL and PVD
Programs: RapidRewards, SkyPesos, whatever flies where I want to go.
Posts: 270
Anyway, frequencies are nice when I fly into the USA from Europe and sometimes customs & immigration facilities are absolutely jammed. I have missed flights before, but then with higher frequencies have gotten booked on a new flight! Very convenient.
Immigration at the MIA can be very busy. Better than having to spend extra night in Miami. I am pretty tired by that time, lots of flight hours and ready to get to my destination and getting some dinner.
Immigration at the MIA can be very busy. Better than having to spend extra night in Miami. I am pretty tired by that time, lots of flight hours and ready to get to my destination and getting some dinner.
How are they worse? I have zero queues at security, I have free food and drink and wifi in the terminal, I have metres to walk to my gate, never having to rush, I have better legroom, better seating, better service, free food and drinks, decent overhead space, and efficient boarding. The airport is getting more and more traffic, not less, it has recently expanded its capacity, and it's key driver is saving people time - the very fact this airport is thriving tells you that people don't want to fly only on jets from mainline airports, they proactively pick this airport over the huge one for all the reasons I have listed. Oh, and plenty of people from 'big US cities' also choose to fly into this airport when coming for business rather than the big hub. If people wanted to fly mainline, this small airport wouldn't survive. It does. Your premise is incorrect.
Jul 6, 2017, 7:17 pm
#70
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: VPS
Programs: IHG Diamond, Delta PM, Hilton Gold, Accor Gold, Marriott Silver
Posts: 7,262
Airlines should not be booking stuff that tight. Even just domestic connections are often way too tight. I see a lot of flights come up with 45-minute or even less connections, which is completely insane. You have to be at the gate 30 minutes ahead of the flight departure (40 for DL), and it often takes 15-20 minutes just to get off the plane. Connections much less than 90 minutes are just nuts, since planes often run late.
Why make a travel day longer than it has to be? I just don't get it. Far more relaxing and pleasant to get to the destination as quickly as possible, kick off one's shoes, and flop in front of the tv in a nice private hotel room/back in my house. Food options outside of the airport are also almost always better than airside food options.
Jul 6, 2017, 7:41 pm
#71
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,602
Jul 7, 2017, 9:12 am
#72
Join Date: May 2009
Location: PHL
Posts: 2,842
AA at PHL has been terrible the past few years. Don't get me wrong, the 70-90 seaters can be comfortable, but some of these are a bit of a stretch with 2-4 hour flights on these large RJ's.
7/17
PHL-IAH - 3x 175's
PHL-DTW - 3 out of 6 on CRJ's, 3 on 70-90 seaters
PHL-MSP - 4x 190's
PHL-MKE - all CRJ's
PHL-BUF - 5 out of 6 on CRJ/ERJ
PHL-STL - 3x CRJ/ERJ, 2x 175
PHL-MCI - 3x 175
PHL-MSY - 2x 190
7/17
PHL-IAH - 3x 175's
PHL-DTW - 3 out of 6 on CRJ's, 3 on 70-90 seaters
PHL-MSP - 4x 190's
PHL-MKE - all CRJ's
PHL-BUF - 5 out of 6 on CRJ/ERJ
PHL-STL - 3x CRJ/ERJ, 2x 175
PHL-MCI - 3x 175
PHL-MSY - 2x 190
Jul 7, 2017, 9:35 am
#73
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: DFW
Programs: UA 1K, AA Platinum, Hilton Diamond, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 466
What an interesting thread. Not to add to the circle or arguments going on here but it basically sounds like the OP is basically for re-regulation of the airline industry. It was deregulated so airlines could compete how they see fit, and put whatever size airplane into whatever market they choose. Therefore, everyone has the ability to choose what works for them. Some people like the connections to smaller regional airports, because of the convenience of quick checkin, no lines, etc. Others, such as the OP, prefer to fly a larger aircraft into a larger airport, and use other means to get to his final destination. Great! Everyone is happy they have a choice. But somehow, the OP doesn't like that service even exists to small airports. I'm not sure how service existing to small airport effects someone in a negative way if you choose not to take said service?
He also states that general aviation shouldn't exist, but later complains about long TSA lines at hubs. General Aviation exists for that reason. A business or person can be way more productive if they have their own fleet or can charter a private plane. Perhaps they need to visit several of their clients in one day. Or get to that small town airport to visit a distribution center or factory and be back again for dinner with that family. Good thing private planes exist because in your world you just banned all commercial service to small regional airport. Oh wait. I guess you banned general aviation too. I guess my plant is going to shut down because no one can get to it anymore, very easily. There goes the economy.
I do agree our rail service needs to be much improved. WN does provide a good service, and I wish the legacies could improve things, such as the baggage chaos. But I do like my hubs and the way they do things as well. I like assigned seating too.
He also states that general aviation shouldn't exist, but later complains about long TSA lines at hubs. General Aviation exists for that reason. A business or person can be way more productive if they have their own fleet or can charter a private plane. Perhaps they need to visit several of their clients in one day. Or get to that small town airport to visit a distribution center or factory and be back again for dinner with that family. Good thing private planes exist because in your world you just banned all commercial service to small regional airport. Oh wait. I guess you banned general aviation too. I guess my plant is going to shut down because no one can get to it anymore, very easily. There goes the economy.
I do agree our rail service needs to be much improved. WN does provide a good service, and I wish the legacies could improve things, such as the baggage chaos. But I do like my hubs and the way they do things as well. I like assigned seating too.
Jul 7, 2017, 9:26 pm
#74
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Between BDL and PVD
Programs: RapidRewards, SkyPesos, whatever flies where I want to go.
Posts: 270
The ideal is to get rid of as many connections as you can, but obviously some markets are going to require them, as you can't have direct flights from BDL and PVD to everywhere. OTOH, big cities can have direct flights almost anywhere, and the legacies need to work on more direct flights, as smaller carriers are coming in and offering more direct flight options.
It was deregulated so airlines could compete how they see fit, and put whatever size airplane into whatever market they choose. Therefore, everyone has the ability to choose what works for them. Some people like the connections to smaller regional airports, because of the convenience of quick checkin, no lines, etc. Others, such as the OP, prefer to fly a larger aircraft into a larger airport, and use other means to get to his final destination. Great! Everyone is happy they have a choice.
However, the legacies are losing scale of economy and scale of operations relative to what LCCs and ULCCs have, and are in a downward spiral in terms of domestic marketshare, if not absolute traffic, since the market as a whole has grown immensely over the past few decades.
But somehow, the OP doesn't like that service even exists to small airports. I'm not sure how service existing to small airport effects someone in a negative way if you choose not to take said service?
If the mainline routes were operated purely as mainline routes, there is probably enough excess capacity to serve a few regional destinations that are truly far away from mainline air service, like CIU, not ridiculous redundant airports like HVN or ABE. However, I like the idea of doing milk runs with bigger aircraft, and most of these far out there places have pretty decent runways that are more than capable of handling a B737 or A320 milk run.
He also states that general aviation shouldn't exist, but later complains about long TSA lines at hubs. General Aviation exists for that reason. A business or person can be way more productive if they have their own fleet or can charter a private plane. Perhaps they need to visit several of their clients in one day. Or get to that small town airport to visit a distribution center or factory and be back again for dinner with that family. Good thing private planes exist because in your world you just banned all commercial service to small regional airport. Oh wait. I guess you banned general aviation too. I guess my plant is going to shut down because no one can get to it anymore, very easily. There goes the economy.
I do agree our rail service needs to be much improved. WN does provide a good service, and I wish the legacies could improve things, such as the baggage chaos. But I do like my hubs and the way they do things as well. I like assigned seating too.
The hubs are too big, and too congested. And assigned seating is just an annoying waste. Why on earth would you not want the freedom to choose any open seat that you like? It's so odd to have to fumble around finding an assigned seat versus just picking one that looks good.
Jul 8, 2017, 3:44 am
#75
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,578
I can see how you're getting to that conclusion. I'd rather that the airlines figure out how to operate more efficiently on their own, and apply lessons learned from WN, B6, NK, F9, and others to their own operations. I don't like the idea of re-regulation, as then you end up with $1000 plane tickets to anywhere, crappy load factors, and no WN, B6, NK, or F9. That being said, the airlines should work to consolidate and streamline their operations, and eliminate all regional flights from non-hub mainline airports, and prune out redundant and wasteful routes.
The legacies are doing a pretty bad job of it, judging by the rapid rise of WN and others. Of course, you could just as well argue that the mere existence of WN, B6, NK, and F9 mean that deregulation works, as the legacies are too stuck in their ways to change, so the market needed disruption, and WN's domination of the market is icing on the cake, and proof and deregulation works.
However, the legacies are losing scale of economy and scale of operations relative to what LCCs and ULCCs have, and are in a downward spiral in terms of domestic marketshare, if not absolute traffic, since the market as a whole has grown immensely over the past few decades.
However, the legacies are losing scale of economy and scale of operations relative to what LCCs and ULCCs have, and are in a downward spiral in terms of domestic marketshare, if not absolute traffic, since the market as a whole has grown immensely over the past few decades.
I've already explained this like 5 times. I don't like having to taxi 5 miles to a runway in East Timbuktu because there is a gaggle of toy airplanes clogging up the main runway. And that's at DTW, which isn't really congested. It's far worse at congested airports, where little regional jets are clogging everything up for everyone else.
If the mainline routes were operated purely as mainline routes, there is probably enough excess capacity to serve a few regional destinations that are truly far away from mainline air service, like CIU, not ridiculous redundant airports like HVN or ABE. However, I like the idea of doing milk runs with bigger aircraft, and most of these far out there places have pretty decent runways that are more than capable of handling a B737 or A320 milk run.
Yeah, that's a whole different topic, but our airline and highway systems are taking the load of our basically nonexistent rail system (outside of the northeast anyway), with planes and cars both taking that 300-700 mile range that's often best served by trains, depending on the route. I'd like to see more integrated transit hubs too, with car rentals available, and possibly cross-connectivity with other ground, air, or water transportation options depending on the location. Our current interconnectivity is awful, and there are so many awkward gaps in the system. For example, I would totally take a train out to DTW, except that it gets to Toledo at 4 in the morning, and there is nowhere to rent a car. Great. Even just improving our existing low-speed rail system with more capacity and sleeping cars would be a huge improvement, while also planning for a nationwide high-speed 220mph rail system. A true high-speed rail system with good interconnectivity would pretty effectively serve most city pairs that are entirely east of the Mississippi. It's not going to knock out the JFK-SFO route, but it certainly would reduce congestion to the big airports for people flying 300-700 miles, and reduce highway congestion for people driving the same.
The hubs are too big, and too congested. And assigned seating is just an annoying waste. Why on earth would you not want the freedom to choose any open seat that you like? It's so odd to have to fumble around finding an assigned seat versus just picking one that looks good.
The hubs are too big, and too congested. And assigned seating is just an annoying waste. Why on earth would you not want the freedom to choose any open seat that you like? It's so odd to have to fumble around finding an assigned seat versus just picking one that looks good.