big airlines just don't get it, especially in USA
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: GE, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 15,507
Meanwhile, I count five airlines flying LAX-JFK, both of which are hub airports. Prices are indeed lower due to the additional competition; Google Flights seems to show around $250-300ish in economy if you book far enough in advance. Also, there's presumably good enough loads to justify all five carriers' presence, which implies that people are generally okay with flying in/out/through hubs.
say a Moxy A220 can get in & out of Carlsbad, wherever that is & start with flying to 2 or 3 destinations, on a relatively high frequency basis, with a small lounge, they would kill it, as soon as people realised that they could save so much time & stress. Do surf air fly to Carlsbad ?
#47
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 457
According to FlightAware, it's just Qantas and Virgin Australia flying BNE-PER. It's no surprise that you're going to have to pay a fair bit of money.
Meanwhile, I count five airlines flying LAX-JFK, both of which are hub airports. Prices are indeed lower due to the additional competition; Google Flights seems to show around $250-300ish in economy if you book far enough in advance. Also, there's presumably good enough loads to justify all five carriers' presence, which implies that people are generally okay with flying in/out/through hubs.
No one flies to Carlsbad now. And that's the main point I was trying to make--I don't think there's that much demand in the US for what you're suggesting. (Otherwise, United would still be flying to LAX and maybe a few other destinations too from there.)
Meanwhile, I count five airlines flying LAX-JFK, both of which are hub airports. Prices are indeed lower due to the additional competition; Google Flights seems to show around $250-300ish in economy if you book far enough in advance. Also, there's presumably good enough loads to justify all five carriers' presence, which implies that people are generally okay with flying in/out/through hubs.
No one flies to Carlsbad now. And that's the main point I was trying to make--I don't think there's that much demand in the US for what you're suggesting. (Otherwise, United would still be flying to LAX and maybe a few other destinations too from there.)
WestPac tried to use COS as a hub decades ago. We have the runways to handle any aircraft, but that doesn't mean an airline can make it profitable. We waisted money adding a terminal for them that was never used. I don't hold my breath for anything in aviation, as it's simply a waste of time.
Last edited by JY1024; Jun 11, 2019 at 9:19 am Reason: Merged consecutive posts - please use multi quote
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: GE, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 15,507
We really only have 2 major airlines in OZ. Qantarse has Junkstar(Jetstar) as their low cost & Virgin has Tiger as their low cost. QF/VA decide when & where the LCCs fly to. Plus we only have 24 million people in an area almost the same as mainland USA (with a big bloody desert in the middle). What's USA mainland population ? 250 million ? Moxy only need a very small % to make it work.
BTW the US population is currently 327 million.
#49
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 457
According to FlightAware, it's just Qantas and Virgin Australia flying BNE-PER. It's no surprise that you're going to have to pay a fair bit of money.
Meanwhile, I count five airlines flying LAX-JFK, both of which are hub airports. Prices are indeed lower due to the additional competition; Google Flights seems to show around $250-300ish in economy if you book far enough in advance. Also, there's presumably good enough loads to justify all five carriers' presence, which implies that people are generally okay with flying in/out/through hubs.
No one flies to Carlsbad now. And that's the main point I was trying to make--I don't think there's that much demand in the US for what you're suggesting. (Otherwise, United would still be flying to LAX and maybe a few other destinations too from there.)
Meanwhile, I count five airlines flying LAX-JFK, both of which are hub airports. Prices are indeed lower due to the additional competition; Google Flights seems to show around $250-300ish in economy if you book far enough in advance. Also, there's presumably good enough loads to justify all five carriers' presence, which implies that people are generally okay with flying in/out/through hubs.
No one flies to Carlsbad now. And that's the main point I was trying to make--I don't think there's that much demand in the US for what you're suggesting. (Otherwise, United would still be flying to LAX and maybe a few other destinations too from there.)
originally Posted by tmiw Speaking of smaller city pairs, McClellan-Palomar Airport up in Carlsbad, CA has occasionally had passenger service, originally with United Express (EMB120 turboprops) and more recently California Pacific Airlnes (E135/145s). The latter airline only flew for a few months before folding, in fact. This despite there being enough population in the surrounding area that flights from there could theoretically capture a lot of passengers who would otherwise have flown out of SNA or SAN.
Anyway, the point is that it's going to take more than a supposed desire to "avoid big airports" for Moxy or some other similar competitor to succeed.
>>>
If McClellan-Palomars 1493m runway is big enough for Moxy A220s, then surely it would be the perfect port for them. Plenty of people nearby with money & if you lived nearby, who'd want to spend an hour driving to SNA or SAN plus all the stuffing around at those airports.
Anyway, the point is that it's going to take more than a supposed desire to "avoid big airports" for Moxy or some other similar competitor to succeed.
>>>
If McClellan-Palomars 1493m runway is big enough for Moxy A220s, then surely it would be the perfect port for them. Plenty of people nearby with money & if you lived nearby, who'd want to spend an hour driving to SNA or SAN plus all the stuffing around at those airports.
That's like saying that since Australia has two airlines for 24 million people, a country with 240 million could easily support twenty airlines. Granted, I think there is room for another airline or two here, but I don't think point to point to various out of the way airports is a niche that will sustain them.
BTW the US population is currently 327 million.
BTW the US population is currently 327 million.
According to FlightAware, it's just Qantas and Virgin Australia flying BNE-PER. It's no surprise that you're going to have to pay a fair bit of money.
Meanwhile, I count five airlines flying LAX-JFK, both of which are hub airports. Prices are indeed lower due to the additional competition; Google Flights seems to show around $250-300ish in economy if you book far enough in advance. Also, there's presumably good enough loads to justify all five carriers' presence, which implies that people are generally okay with flying in/out/through hubs.
No one flies to Carlsbad now. And that's the main point I was trying to make--I don't think there's that much demand in the US for what you're suggesting. (Otherwise, United would still be flying to LAX and maybe a few other destinations too from there.)
Meanwhile, I count five airlines flying LAX-JFK, both of which are hub airports. Prices are indeed lower due to the additional competition; Google Flights seems to show around $250-300ish in economy if you book far enough in advance. Also, there's presumably good enough loads to justify all five carriers' presence, which implies that people are generally okay with flying in/out/through hubs.
No one flies to Carlsbad now. And that's the main point I was trying to make--I don't think there's that much demand in the US for what you're suggesting. (Otherwise, United would still be flying to LAX and maybe a few other destinations too from there.)
Point being that this sort of airport, that couldn't handle a B737/A320 but maybe with a slightly longer runway, could handle an A220. Think of big boys only Delta has ordered the A220 & do they want another base in LA/San Diego basin ?
Last edited by JY1024; Jun 11, 2019 at 9:21 am Reason: Merged consecutive posts - please use multi quote feature
#50
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: GE, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 15,507
(Source for data.)
Also keep in mind that there's significant traffic on the major highways leading to it, which will be a factor too.
it seems from these A220 specs below, that an A220-100 could get in & out(just) of Carlsbad, maybe with some weight restriction, but think Moxy has ordered only the bigger A220-300, but that could change in a heartbeat, plus Moxy is probably not going to be all economy, so they might not even get close to MTOW.
Point being that this sort of airport, that couldn't handle a B737/A320 but maybe with a slightly longer runway, could handle an A220. Think of big boys only Delta has ordered the A220 & do they want another base in LA/San Diego basin ?
Point being that this sort of airport, that couldn't handle a B737/A320 but maybe with a slightly longer runway, could handle an A220. Think of big boys only Delta has ordered the A220 & do they want another base in LA/San Diego basin ?
(The A220 also uses 2.81kg/km of fuel per flight, vs. 2.3kg/km for the E170. Which definitely isn't going to help if the loads aren't good enough.)
#51
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 457
1.5 million within a 25 mile radius of Carlsbad, CA. However, the southern edge of that circle is close enough to SAN that many will just go there instead. Reducing that circle to 15 miles reduces the population to 785,000 or so.
(Source for data.)
Also keep in mind that there's significant traffic on the major highways leading to it, which will be a factor too.
Sure, it could take off from there. However, the A220-100 has a 135 passenger max capacity. If California Pacific Airlines couldn't fill Embraer jets (~70 seat capacity), I'm not sure how Moxy would do any better with twice the seats to fill.
(The A220 also uses 2.81kg/km of fuel per flight, vs. 2.3kg/km for the E170. Which definitely isn't going to help if the loads aren't good enough.)
(Source for data.)
Also keep in mind that there's significant traffic on the major highways leading to it, which will be a factor too.
Sure, it could take off from there. However, the A220-100 has a 135 passenger max capacity. If California Pacific Airlines couldn't fill Embraer jets (~70 seat capacity), I'm not sure how Moxy would do any better with twice the seats to fill.
(The A220 also uses 2.81kg/km of fuel per flight, vs. 2.3kg/km for the E170. Which definitely isn't going to help if the loads aren't good enough.)
+ with 60 A220s Moxy would be considered a major in OZ. Virgin OZ only has 80 x 737s & quite a few of those do medium haul international. Qantarse has less at 75 x 737s but they also use some A330s for domestic trans-continental.
Who is CPA ? Where did they fly to ?
Is MOxy was to go into Carlsbad, they would surely start with 6-8 rotations a day to 2 or 3 ports.
#52
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Ryanair ? Don't think so. Many here don't seem to get it.
Big hubs have massive delays. Delays mean very inefficient use of aircraft, waiting around in long queues just to take off. I think Moxy will have 1 massive advantage over the big boys. Super efficient new aircraft, with fast turns at less congested airports. Rather than do an Allegiant & fly some 1 horse town to Vegas twice a week, think when Moxy start a route, they will fly it many times a day, say 6-8 times a day minimum, then when that route works, they'll start another 6-8 times a day.
The big boys don't want anymore bases in big cities.
Big hubs have massive delays. Delays mean very inefficient use of aircraft, waiting around in long queues just to take off. I think Moxy will have 1 massive advantage over the big boys. Super efficient new aircraft, with fast turns at less congested airports. Rather than do an Allegiant & fly some 1 horse town to Vegas twice a week, think when Moxy start a route, they will fly it many times a day, say 6-8 times a day minimum, then when that route works, they'll start another 6-8 times a day.
The big boys don't want anymore bases in big cities.
Sure, everyone would love to have convenient, quick, easy, local flights to everywhere that they want to go - at affordable prices. But if wishes were fishes, we'd all have a fry. Every product and services carries with it trade-offs among various attributes including price. Though I think 99% of people don't care whether the airport structure is ugly or beautiful (personally I find the architecture in some terminals very aesthetically pleasing).
There are pros and cons to both the hub-and-spoke system and to point-to-point systems. Time will tell how Moxy will pan out, assuming it gets off the ground in the first place. I hope it does well and if it meets my needs for a given flight would certainly try it out...and if not, then life goes on.
#53
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 457
think many have mis read Moxys announcements.
Some people seem to think they are going to offer cheaper fares than LCCs. Nope, no money in that. But think they might do a Jetblue & offer better deals to business types, with fares not booked a long way in advance. This is where it's easier to compete + major benefits of less congested airports.
In Australia, no security whatsoever is required, when aircraft is less than 20t MTOW, which includes all Saab 340s, ATR 42s, some 36 seater jets like EMB 135s, Dash 8-100, -200, -300, Dornier 328 turbo props & jets etc. Similar in New Zealand I think.
Some people seem to think they are going to offer cheaper fares than LCCs. Nope, no money in that. But think they might do a Jetblue & offer better deals to business types, with fares not booked a long way in advance. This is where it's easier to compete + major benefits of less congested airports.
In Australia, no security whatsoever is required, when aircraft is less than 20t MTOW, which includes all Saab 340s, ATR 42s, some 36 seater jets like EMB 135s, Dash 8-100, -200, -300, Dornier 328 turbo props & jets etc. Similar in New Zealand I think.
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
A tad premature given that Moxy does not even exist yet.
Originally Posted by OZFLYER
It's not just about price.
Originally Posted by OZFLYER
Companies with offices near the airports Moxy will fly to, will be targeted & offered fares which won't be LCC type fares, but will be better than big boys last minute fares... This is exactly where Moxy can be a lot cheaper.
Not saying Moxy is dead before it starts. I'm saying Neeleman has to crack a heretofore uncracked code. Not only that, the last time he ran this play, with JetBlue in the late '90s, the barriers to entry in the NA airline market were a lot lower than today.
Last edited by BearX220; Jun 7, 2019 at 8:42 am Reason: Fix typo
#55
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,575
The more I read here, the more I realise Moxy will work & the big boys will leave them alone. The big boys can only compete on price from those big ugly shopping centres(sorry airports) Many business types aren't going to use those cheap & nasty basic economy fares or LCCs.
I will root for it - I would love to see it work. The logic of the old Midwest wasn't in rural or smalltown airports, but rather in finding business routes that weren't served by the majors. From MCI, I flew them to SAT, SEA, BOS, MKE, and both Southern and Northern California. The product was solid and the flights were filled mainly with business travelers paying medium-to-high coach fares. It worked in the economics of the 90's but didn't survive the post-2001 world for very long.
The problem with nearly every one of those routes I mentioned: in 2019, Southwest flies them all, whereas they didn't in the 1990s. WN's expansion in the past 20 years has filled in a lot of the gaps where a Midwest type player would have a niche. You could probably say the same about Jetblue in the east and Alaska in the west, although I'm less familiar with where they still have some gaps.
I'm having a hard time figuring out where some good Moxy routes would be, beyond ones that make the residents of Rockford really happy.
And they have to do one of two things: either change the name or form such a strong partnership with Marriott that LT Titanium members get automatic upgrades.
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Originally Posted by pinniped
WN's expansion in the past 20 years has filled in a lot of the gaps where a Midwest type player would have a niche. You could probably say the same about Jetblue in the east and Alaska in the west.
#57
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
think many have mis read Moxys announcements.
Some people seem to think they are going to offer cheaper fares than LCCs. Nope, no money in that. But think they might do a Jetblue & offer better deals to business types, with fares not booked a long way in advance. This is where it's easier to compete + major benefits of less congested airports.
In Australia, no security whatsoever is required, when aircraft is less than 20t MTOW, which includes all Saab 340s, ATR 42s, some 36 seater jets like EMB 135s, Dash 8-100, -200, -300, Dornier 328 turbo props & jets etc. Similar in New Zealand I think.
Some people seem to think they are going to offer cheaper fares than LCCs. Nope, no money in that. But think they might do a Jetblue & offer better deals to business types, with fares not booked a long way in advance. This is where it's easier to compete + major benefits of less congested airports.
In Australia, no security whatsoever is required, when aircraft is less than 20t MTOW, which includes all Saab 340s, ATR 42s, some 36 seater jets like EMB 135s, Dash 8-100, -200, -300, Dornier 328 turbo props & jets etc. Similar in New Zealand I think.
Neeleman has a good track record and all, but even the best and brightest aren't a guaranteed success every single time. This is a tough industry, no matter how you slice it.
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: GE, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 15,507
Various destinations in CA, NV and AZ per Wikipedia. I only remember ever hearing about CRQ-SJC and CRQ-LAS, though.
IIRC CPA was only ever doing a few flights a day per destination.
#59
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 457
Which only works if you can fill those seats. And history has shown that is fairly difficult (if not impossible), at least at CRQ.
Various destinations in CA, NV and AZ per Wikipedia. I only remember ever hearing about CRQ-SJC and CRQ-LAS, though.
IIRC CPA was only ever doing a few flights a day per destination.
Various destinations in CA, NV and AZ per Wikipedia. I only remember ever hearing about CRQ-SJC and CRQ-LAS, though.
IIRC CPA was only ever doing a few flights a day per destination.
1.5 million within a 25 mile radius of Carlsbad, CA. However, the southern edge of that circle is close enough to SAN that many will just go there instead. Reducing that circle to 15 miles reduces the population to 785,000 or so.
(Source for data.)
Also keep in mind that there's significant traffic on the major highways leading to it, which will be a factor too.
Sure, it could take off from there. However, the A220-100 has a 135 passenger max capacity. If California Pacific Airlines couldn't fill Embraer jets (~70 seat capacity), I'm not sure how Moxy would do any better with twice the seats to fill.
(The A220 also uses 2.81kg/km of fuel per flight, vs. 2.3kg/km for the E170. Which definitely isn't going to help if the loads aren't good enough.)
(Source for data.)
Also keep in mind that there's significant traffic on the major highways leading to it, which will be a factor too.
Sure, it could take off from there. However, the A220-100 has a 135 passenger max capacity. If California Pacific Airlines couldn't fill Embraer jets (~70 seat capacity), I'm not sure how Moxy would do any better with twice the seats to fill.
(The A220 also uses 2.81kg/km of fuel per flight, vs. 2.3kg/km for the E170. Which definitely isn't going to help if the loads aren't good enough.)
The market, that's who. That's why they're spending ungody sums to expand LHR capacity while crickets chirp at Luton.
A tad premature given that Moxy does not even exist yet.
Again, the market begs to differ. A lot of entrepreneurs go out and tell the marketplace how wrong it is to want what it wants, and try to force people to choose something different. It rarely works.
Such companies have favored contract pricing with a "big boy" carrier. They don't pay last-minute civilian fares. If you don't think those big boys will make selective deals to defend that revenue channel and freeze Moxy out, just as they used price wars to run off PeoplExpress, Air Florida, Muse Air, Independence Air, Midway, SkyBus, the new National, Western Pacific, etc., etc. -- virtually all post-deregulation insurgent airlines in the US except America West and JetBlue -- well, sit back and watch the knife fight.
Not saying Moxy is dead before it starts. I'm saying Neeleman has to crack a heretofore uncracked code. Not only that, the last time he ran this play, with JetBlue in the late '90s, the barriers to entry in the NA airline market were a lot lower than today.
A tad premature given that Moxy does not even exist yet.
Again, the market begs to differ. A lot of entrepreneurs go out and tell the marketplace how wrong it is to want what it wants, and try to force people to choose something different. It rarely works.
Such companies have favored contract pricing with a "big boy" carrier. They don't pay last-minute civilian fares. If you don't think those big boys will make selective deals to defend that revenue channel and freeze Moxy out, just as they used price wars to run off PeoplExpress, Air Florida, Muse Air, Independence Air, Midway, SkyBus, the new National, Western Pacific, etc., etc. -- virtually all post-deregulation insurgent airlines in the US except America West and JetBlue -- well, sit back and watch the knife fight.
Not saying Moxy is dead before it starts. I'm saying Neeleman has to crack a heretofore uncracked code. Not only that, the last time he ran this play, with JetBlue in the late '90s, the barriers to entry in the NA airline market were a lot lower than today.
just realised an A220 could easily go west coast USA to east coast USA nonstop & vice versa. That must open up a lot of routes, that the big boys force you to go through a hub to get to. Hubs add hours to any trip & potential delays are enormous.
Look at what the B787 & now a A350 has done to hub busting long haul.
The A380 is "dead"
Last edited by JY1024; Jun 11, 2019 at 9:04 am Reason: Merged multiple consecutive posts - please use multi quote or edit feature
#60
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: GE, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 15,507
Now, a major airline might be able to subsidize such a route (even if it were just one or two turns a day/week) if they were to ever try service. I doubt a new one would have such flexibility, however, especially since business travelers value stuff like frequency and being able to still get home in an IRROPS situation.
Another recent example: I flew SAN-SMF and went to the Redding area by car, a 2 hour drive from SMF. I could have flown SAN-SFO-RDD on UA instead and avoided the drive, but that ticket was $200ish round trip compared to the $100ish AS charged for SAN-SMF (WN was similar, IIRC). And we needed a car up there anyway. Now, would UA lower prices if someone else also served that route? Sure, but is there enough traffic to justify it without killing service entirely?
LHR (as well as most of the rest of London) has mass transit that's far better than in a lot of the US. And its location also permits long-haul flights to most anywhere in the world. Not sure it's a great comparison.