That's why UA has more slots and gates than any other carrier at SFO, right, because it's a bad location for connections? :rolleyes:

This is your opinion of a logical connection. First of all, for some of these routes there are no non-stops, or none that have convenient times. For example, I won't take redeyes. So, the (sometimes seasonal) nonstop between MIA and SEA and back will not work for me (I consider an 8am ET flight back to the west coast to be a redeye, since I have to leave my Miami house at 3am PT, and "wake up" before that). So, you need to be comparing with existing connections.

Second, I'm not sure how much of a factor this really is. Northwest seems to get by with what I consider crappy hubs. I know plenty of people who connect through DTW to go from NYC to MIA. And that's with a product which can't hold a candle to B6, let alone VX.

note the word domestic. SFO is good for connections from BLI-SAN or EUG-PSP but not good for SEA-JFK. SFO is also good for non-West Coast-Hawaii flights and flights from everywhere South and East of SFO to Asia. SFO is bad for connections that VX is aiming at, not bad for connections UA is aiming at.

I checked SEA-MIA with SEA-MSP-MIA, SEA-DFW-MIA, and SEA-ATL-MIA. ATL was off by 1.9%, DFW 2.1%, MSP by 6.4%. I would assume SAN-DFW-MIA would be very close to actual distance. NW's MSP and DTW hubs are actually well placed for West-East connections when going or coming from the Northern end of the country. SEA-MSP/DTW-MIA is logical, LAX-MSP/DTW-LGA is logical, the only illogical ones are routes like LAX-MSP/DTW-MIA or NYC-DTW-MIA (for miles I assume)

There's also price and product. I will definitely go through SFO on my MIA-SEA flights (many per year) to take advantage of the VX product.

SFO doesn't have slots. Nobody has slots at SFO.

Nonetheless, the points being made that people won't connect in SFO because it adds 21% or whatever to their flight mileage are idiotic.

99.9% of travelers don't think like that. Flying a route like MIA-SFO-SEA or MIA-SFO-LAS is perfectly logical, and people do it all the time.

Seems like an awful lot when AA only does 3/day. And certainly a good chunk of those connect on AA to somewhere else from there.

I don't understand why people can't envision people connecting on VX to somewhere else from SFO.

Who cares what AA does? It's irrelevant, especially considering AA's history of purposely limiting capacity on monopoly markets, something they've been doing at MIA for years.

VX originaly schedule to MIA, as of NOV07, was looking at 1x LAX / 2x SFO / 3x JFK. Of course, things change all the time and I don't know what it will look like when it launches. While they've hired some "higher ups" in Miami (like cargo sales reps), they've put a hold on hiring until they get a better timetable in place of when planes are going to arrive, and in what order Miami, Chicago, and Boston will launch.

My bad, poor choice of words. I meant to say they have more flights than any other carrier at SFO (takeoffs and landings).
Here here!! ^

People may still connect MIA-SFO-LAS if the flight is cheaper, but then VX would have to charge less than the compeition to make up for the lost time. VX would then get less revenue per mile as the low yielding MIA-SFO-LAS pax are cluttering up MIA-SFO for logical connections. If VX went to a mile based FF system than adding 21% to flight millage is a good thing, but if only revenue matters than people would be less inclined to take the longer route among those who care about FF miles.

Just wondering, when the FAA awards routes like IAD-PEK to UA (for example) and there is competition for the frequencies what do they consider a logical connection to be? I thought it was less than 10% off great circle for the city and to be a 1-4 hour connection. That idea (possibly wrong) is what I based my logical connection idea on.

In theory, sure--I can envision it. In reality--maybe. When there's more flights and places to connect to then the idea of 3/day SFO-MIA/MIA-SFO might seem realistic.

I like the VX product, and think that those who give it a try will like it as well. But I've also had last-minute itin changes (cancellations) on my last 2 SFO-JFK flights, presumably when they re-arranged their schedule to fill up the planes. 3 MIA flights a day is a lot of seats to fill with limited same-airline connections on one end, none on the other, and no codeshare partners.

http://flyertalk.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9192150
 

VX doing 3/day would double the current non-stop flights from any Bay Area airport to any South Florida airport. As someone who flies that route 1-2 times a year, I'd love to see that. But if there were a pent-up demand for additional capacity, wouldn't the marketplace have taken care of that? Why did B6 just stop their OAK-FLL n/s? UA used to have 1-2 flights SFO-MIA as well, but that's been a while.

Here's hoping 1-2/day works, and they have to add more.:p

The "hiring cargo sales reps" part cracks me up--as a freight forwarder, the VX reps offerings at SFO were laughable--totally non-competitive service with any domestic carrier save for B6 (who wasn't accepting any cargo but human remains at the time.)

I agree that 3 is too many, and considering the planes they have on order, I think impossible. If the times are good (not redeye in either direction by my definition of redeye), I would be happy with 1 per day LAX-MIA and SFO-MIA.

All I will say is that VX's res system already has several cities loaded into it that are not currently served. PDX is one, MIA is another. Only administrators and managers can see these cities, and perhaps they are indicative of future plans. For reference, SAN and SEA were also present in this list the last time I looked at it, when LAS was opened.

"Administrators and managers" of what?

How bout Hawaii? An orbitz search pulls up a whopping TWO nonstop flights (United and Aloha) between SFO-Kona, for example, at a whopping $1250. If Virgin America can undercut that with a $850 fare on that route for economy or something like that, they'll surely attract customers.

Three nonstops from the bay area (ATA, United and Aloha). I believe an A320 can handle SFO-Hawaii....if not, they can get A330s or something. I know an A321 can't handle Hawaii.

Or Alaska. There doesn't seem to be that many competitors to Alaska either from the east or west coast. Maybe Hawaii-Alaska?

I know Air Canada has a virtual monopoly on US-Canada routes. For example NYC-Montreal costs like $400.

Not to derail this thread with discussion of Hawaii, but NWA and Hawaiian offer service to Hawaii from SFO as well, just not to Kona.

Well my point is, it costs like $800 to fly to Hawaii at certain times. Seems to be a huge demand and not enough supply.

On the flip side, there's not a SINGLE nonstop between Honolulu and Anchorage. Like, NONE. ZERO.

The cheapest flight is $1000, and it connects through Seattle.

Doesn't AS fly ANC-HNL?

I'm not sure. It didn't show up on Orbitz. I'll look it up on flightstats.

Note: you're right. AS871. But that's a duopoly. Virgin can like almost set their own fares. The fares on Alaskaair.com for default dates are like $927 all in. A month out, the fare's more like $850, and you can't even book the nonstop both ways.

Virgin is never going to fly to or from Alaska. Sorry, but there just isn't the demand and that that doesn't fit into their business model.

You can go OAK-KOA on TZ next week for $378 all in R/T. Plenty of seats available! ;)

I don't think VX would want to go through the trouble of getting their A319's certified for HI, the smallest plane the other people fly is the 73G, similar but different than the A319. Check SFO/OAK/SJC-HNL for HI fares, nearly as cheap at time as TransCon's.

I suggested VX expanding to AK in a different thread, "Virgin America to Expand?", but no one payed attention to it. The basis was 5X SEA-ANC 1X SEA-FAI 1X SFO-ANC 4X SEA-LAX 5X SEA-SAN 2X SEA-JFK/IAD 1X SEA-MIA 4X SEA-SFO. Times and amount of planes are in the other thread. Link is here: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=738213 My posts relating to the schedule are posts 104 and 105.

You're theory on VX having those flights to Alaska, assumes all those flights to/from Seattle. I doubt they will have THAT many flights to Seattle. Their base on the West Coast is SFO.

Yes, it is. AS has already flies from ANC-HNL nonstop by the equipment 738. I'm surely if AS will done extremely very well. It was during overwater restrictions by ETOPS. I know NW is currently still flies from ANC-HNL all year-round. I assume that I don't see specifiable information from AS. I'm sure if AS will continuation goes for all year-round long for ANC-HNL instead one-stop in SEA.

No, probably not but, they won't do that. Because it doesn't have anything more aircraft availability for this time. Because VX will remain in USA mainland for a long time.

VX should be a P2P O/D airline not bound by the hub and spoke system. If there is demand at a sustainable amount why should VX not fly the route? VX could provide a WN effect and create a niche in the SEA and AK markets. If VX remains bounded by only expanding SFO not enough profitable routes would be able to be created.

For purposes of this thread, you have to allow for a basic fact - VX has an SFO hub. If you want to play "fantasy airline" and define your own set of routes, that's cool - but it's not the VX business plan. Perhaps an alternate thread that you start that lets you create an airline based on your ideas of best routes would generate a worthwhile conversation. Not sure which Forum is best for that ... ??

OK, then scale back AK expansion to 1X SFO-ANC, a good use of a RON plane (also allow for good connections to LAX/SAN/LAS). SFO-AUS would also be a good route to pick up spill from the nerd bird.

Any suggestions on fantasy airline based threads?

I think if VX were to serve AUS they would do quite well. I hope it's in their 5 year/30 city plan.

For Fantasy Airlines - try Travel Buzz!

Are you talking about Austin, Texas? or Australia?

Virgin Blue spin off "V Australia" is planning on serving the USA-Australia route later this year (if the open air talks go well this month). Probably BNE-SFO from what I last read.

No prizes for guessing which US airline will handle connections :D

AUS = Austin, Texas.
I was speaking in response to prismwiz's comments.

Sure they'll stay on the mainland for a while & get the big cities covered, but ANC can be served relatively easily with aircraft downtime. Most flights depart for Alaska in the evening & fly back as a redeye with almost no influence on aircraft scheduling the following day. You could fly ANC-SFO/LAX-JFK/MIA return daily with the same aircraft.

I wouldn't say 'never' but given that VX plan to focus on the west coast, sure it's a niche market but it'll happen someday...

...& to an extent LAX. I could see some major cities being served from SEA. It's basically an AS monopoly except for Major Airlines routes (ORD for UA/AA connections etc.) & could do with the competition. JFK double daily would be a nice addition to SFO/LAX...


V Australia could also work well with Virgin Atlantic giving another Virgin choice from London to Australia. These connections will be important as VX is basically carving out a market of O&D pax who are otherwise loyal to someone else. This should boost loads & do something magic for fares to Australia.

Why would you want a niche out of the SEA/Alaska market? The population center up there is so small it doesn't make sense. Seattle is just about the same size as San Diego and has no nearby medium-large cities to connect to. LA and SF are MUCH larger areas with MUCH larger population bases.

If VX is going to look for a secondary market on the west coast, San Diego would offer the benefit of closer connection cities (LAX, TUS, PHX, LAX, etc.) and also with better weather in SAN vs. SEA, you will have less delays.

I think LAX and SFO is plenty for one coast.

So your saying San Diego is the place to go because of better weather & shorter distances?! Shorter distances are bad if anything in the States because more people will drive. You also forget that the corportate market out of Seattle is huge. Microsoft & Boeing (to name 2) are massive users of the airlines. Yields will be much higher out of Seattle. However, it will have to break the grip that Alaska/Horizon have on the place. Seattle - Anchorage could work but if VX were to fly from anywhere to there it would be San Francisco.

Yeah, for now:D

From April-October AK is full of destination traffic because of its natural scenery and attractions. From November-March people that live in AK vacation more than others to sunnier places to get out of the winter. In addition, VX would be able to attract biz travelers during the winter months (all months really). Also VX would be able to provide quick one-stop flights to SFO/LAX (SAN/IAD/FLL/JFK if my fantasy plan is followed). Why go on AS for the same price as VX using the same SEA connection?

SEA is much bigger than SAN in people who use the airport. SEA has the combined O/D of BLI south to Centralia. At BLI and Centralia people would look for the lowest airfare and go to YVR or PDX (also BLI, but BLI is very small, flights to LAS/RNO,PSP (seasonal)/SLC/SEA, recently discontinued CMH). SAN has the combined O/D of everyrthing North of the Border to CLD, at CLD people choose whether to use SNA, CLD, or SAN.

SEA has good weather, not as good as SAN, but better than many other places.

Overseas flights
 

Regarding Virgin America flying to Hawaii, it will require ETOPS approval on it's Airbus fleet which will only come after a certain number of hours of no engine shutdowns in flight if at all. Hawaii would be a logical & major step for VX as it could channel the traffic all through it's west coast hubs. Alaska to a lessor extent.

What would be interesting is if VX got a widebody fleet in the future & started flights to the booming economies of the world in Brazil, India & China but hey I'm just speculating...;)