Possible Destinations (Cush Interview)
 

Sorry about all the chopping, didn't want to paste the entire article :p Read the whole article here: http://www.star-telegram.com/dallas_...y/1532842.html (Cush also talks about Frontier, DOT and Investors)

Unfortunately for ORD does not have opening new gates space available this time. I think VX will have to be consider to MDW-SFO/LAX. I don't know whether the situation going on in ORD due to leaks gate space availability both AA & DL will try to leave from concourse L. I think VX will have to takeover whole concourse L gates. However, city of Chicago will have to try to get Delta out of L gates to another new gates to be merge NW gates & ticket counter space, too.

Here's some more speculation about Vancouver: http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/D...940/story.html

I could have done a lot with YYZ-SFO last year.

Vancouver
 

I would like Vancouver as a VX destination. I doubt it will be the next destination however. The article made me laugh about Canadians have such discerning tastes that they wouldn't go for cheap, no frills airlines (not that VX is no frills by any stretch of the imagination). Please! I'm sure they would jump at the savings if given a chance.

I'd love to see PDX.

I totally agree, Canadians are right into saving money.

WestJet is supposed to be a LCC, but there is very little difference between them and Air Canada when comparing prices for the same route on the same day (well everytime I've checked at least).

And although they are cheaper, VX is a much nicer airline than WS and AC. Canadians would love VX.

^^ As a PDXer, not surprising, I totally agree with you. :p PDX is the last major west cost holdout in the VX network. The demographics of the PDX area city fit the model that VX is out for. Plus, PDX-SFO and LAX-PDX are quite important west coast routes.

PLEEEAAASE VX Enter PDX! As an aside, doesn't the phrase "VX to PDX" sound sooo nice?:cool:

Prosper :)

~FAI PDX Flyer :)

Well, I feel for my PDX brethren, since I think VX rocks... but unless there's been a change recently, SEA is VX's weakest station. I don't see that PDX is going to be a great business case for expansion as a new station, given that it has much the same competition as SEA (WN, UA, AS), except a) it gets even MORE pricing pressure from WN, so much so that b) AS is doing downgauges to QX RJs/Q400s on the PDX-Bay Area routes. It seems to me, rather, that they'd be better off going where AS and WN aren't.

But hey, could be wrong...

<< X-Files theme song playing>>

Straaaaanger things have haaaappened, like VX "dissssssing" (note quotations) MIA when chooooosing FLL

<</X-files theme song playing>>. :D

~FAI PDX Flyer :)

Fares between SFO and PDX are through the roof these days, which is why I would love to see VX come in. VX's entry would likely result in a fare war along the lines of what we are currently seeing in the SFO-SEA market. Of course, that is probably the reason we haven't seen this route launch yet.

When VX wasn't even flying they claimed PHX was on the "short list." What happened? Would love to see them kick Doug Parker's butt!

VX will have to be considers for SFO/LAX-PHX. This is under particularly consideration for which specific cities will be choose. VX will have enough the ticket counter space in the T3 where former old NW counter & gates, too. I think VX will have vacanted the gates space at T3 in north concourse. It would be perfect opportunity to bring VX into PHX. We have empties 2 gates is left behind in north concourse at T3. I think it would take the advantage of it. It will be very extremely overcrowded at security checkpoint. I think VX will expecting to bring more capacity growth in PHX. It will bring lot of populations who wants to connection the flight from PHX-LAX/SFO hub. It will have enough more restrictions any leaks the gate space in T3.

Did you ever think that AC matches WS's fares? Just like every other competitive carrier on the planet. What were the fares before WS enetered the market?

If VX enters they will set the new bottom and everyone will match.

Is their not a market for LAX-LAS for VX? Even just 1 or 2 daily would be a good start. Its not exactly a lengthy route anyway.

Would LAX-LAS be more of a leisure route? I wonder if they'd get many pax on the weekend? Do VX have enough planes to increase capacity on any route?

I guess there is always LAX-SFO-LAS or another carrier.

IMO, there is way too much competition on that route, and yields are quite low.

According to the sometimes questionable wikipedia source, VX has 10 A/C on order. Frankly, they should be using those added planes to bring more people into the VX network like they did when they announced FLL.

I have said this on a few occasions before, but I am still at a loss as to why VX, as a west-coast based carrier, has not entered into PDX yet. A PDX-SFO route would not tie-up a single aircraft like a transcontinental flight would, plus PDX has almost the perfect demographics that a trendy carrier like VX would want.

~FAI PDX Flyer :)

SFO-PDX also has very tough competition- WN and AS, both of whom are perfectly happy to have yield-destroying fare wars with VX when it shows up on their turf. It's taken a considerable amount of time and cash for the ex-SEA routes to mature for VX (but it appears that they have), and PDX is an even smaller market. It doesn't surprise me that they only want ONE frontal assault on AS/WN at a time, since VX's advantages largely only show against airlines like AA or UA.

WN's entrance into the SFO-SNA market apparently did not deter VX from also entering the market even though SNA is a SMALLER airport than PDX. So what is the difference? :confused::)

~FAI PDX Flyer :)

I think the major difference is that WN announced SFO-SNA after VX did. At the time VX committed to it, WN was not involved.

Nope. Check out the A.net thread, Southwest Adds SFO To SNA Starting May 9, 2009 . WN clearly announced SFO-SNA service before VX committed to the route.

VX has made no qualms about starting routes that are already 'well served' by the other carriers. Why is PDX any different despite it being a busier airport than SNA?

~FAI PDX Flyer :)

The difference is the lack of AS competition and much lower volume to PDX when you look at the larger market, which is Bay Area to Southern California. SFO-SNA competes with OAK/SJC-SNA and, depending on destination in SoCal, SFO/OAK/SJC-LAX/LGB/ONT and perhaps even BUR and SAN. Between those airports there are hundreds of flights every day between WN, B6, AS, AA, UA and VX. SFO-PDX is a thin route with competition from OAK and SJC in the Bay Area and no real alternate airport in the PDX area. Even though AS, WN and UA fly the routes, they seem to have achieved a decent balance that has allowed them to keep flights full and, based on the prices I am paying for so-called cheap fares on AS, decent yields. Entry by VX would likely cause AS to start a fare war, just as it did on SFO-SEA. I suspect VX wants to time that entry just right to ensure that it can survive the fare war.

SNA is also a slot controlled airport, it may have been an opportunity to get a foot in the door while they could.

Actually, I had already looked in that thread, and VX had already applied for SNA (which I consider a committment) before WN made that announcement.

Yup. If you read the thread, you see the mentions of VX's planned service.

Also, it's a bit different to have WN come in at roughly the same time on your new route, as opposed to starting service on a well-established WN route (PDX-Bay Area). WN could easily decide "time for $29 fares for 6 months" without hurting itself too much (since they have a lot of network outside of that), AS would match, and VX's yields on that route would be trashed.

To give you an idea, SEA-SFO is $49 o/w on AS for a lot of dates in January 2010. PDX-SFO's lowest fare is $114 (which, btb, is considerably higher than SEA-LAX at $69, which is nearly twice as long). That's VX's influence on yields right there- totally trashing them (and you see why AS doesn't like VX very much). Now imagine what happens if WN decides they'll run some $29 PDX-Bay Area specials once VX shows up (WN is considerably stronger in PDX than in SEA, and AS is somewhat weaker- I actually think WN will decide to try and step on BOTH VX and AS's throats in this market by being aggressive in a fare war, since AS is downgauging a lot of PDX-Bay Area to RJs and Q400s).

VX coming to PDX is going to be great if you want cheap fares on the West Coast as a consumer, but the losses on yields can't suck VX dry- AS and WN have lots of cash on hand and they are hardly going to retreat meekly like UA did on SEA-LAX (they downgauged to UX RJs) on routes where they command a lot of market share. VX was meant to compete against legacies (UA, AA). Competing against two of the best-run US carriers (both of whom operate on the West Coast as LCCs) is a whole 'nother ballgame, and I think they will be VERY cautious coming into PDX.

Any New Destination Coming Soon?
 

Has anyone heard of any new destinations or expansion that may be coming soon from VX? I would LOVE to see PHL but from what I gather on reading previous posts, it looks like ATL, AUS, or ORD would come first.

Even though VX is a West Coast based airline, to expand to Toronto and Atlanta would only make the best business sense if JFK became it's East Coast hub. that way, JFK would connect to BOS, DCA and FLL along with Atlanta and Toronto.

Erm, where is VX going to get DCA slots from? Not to mention the problem that they'd be running SFO/LAX-IAD and JFK-DCA, so they'd be duplicating ground staff and so on for not much gain.

I don't think VX is going to try hubbing on the East Coast- you see, there's this other carrier operating Airbuses out of JFK as an LCC you might have heard of...

Personally, I think they will want to show the midcon some love (DFW, DEN and ORD) next... and the service will be out of CA.

I agree with DFW/ORD. DEN would be too much of a battle. UA/WN/F9 (or whatever they are called, now)?

Of course, I also agree (and always have) with your assessment of an east coast hub. Bad idea.

If VX will have to be approval from DOT authority. If they will bring award more slots into DCA. Due to perimeter rule is on the restrictions 1,400 miles and it cannot be allowed to flying transcons flight out of DCA-SFO/LAX. If they will have to be filing with DOT to get in negotiations deal. If perhaps it will have to take the advantage of VX only for DCA-JFK instead of going to transcons flight. Because it was too many congestions control in DCA. Lets speculating begin if VX is considers for DCA-JFK or DCA-FLL.

DCA-FLL is actually underserved. I fly it pretty regularly, and I end up on US :-(

Considering that DL and US had to do some LGA/DCA swaps to rightsize their ops, I am not optimistic that the DOT will start handing out DCA slots like they are Halloween candy- plus there's the factor that they'd be duplicating their IAD efforts and have to set up another station, for very little extra benefit in terms of metro area coverage. Why on earth would you serve both DCA and IAD and not have anything in places like PHX, DFW, DEN, ORD/MDW, ATL?

VX needs a bigger network to add more value. Two stations in Northern VA within 30 miles of each other do very little to help with that.

Perhaps VX thinks it would be in its best interest to try and acquire DCA slots with the hopes that the perimeter rule will be eliminated. SFO-DCA would be an especially lucrative route.

Other than that, I agree that VX having two stations so close together at this point would be of little value.

I meant to say IAD. My mistake but I personally think VX's product is superior then B6.

IF VX makes a East Coast hub, JFK or IAD make the most sense.

VX's F product is certainly superior to B6. But B6's Y product has some advantages over VX. I haven't flown VX coach, but from what I understand, B6's coach is more comfortable. The live portion of the LiveTV is better on B6. Of course BOB food is better on VX. But JFK and FLL are fortress hubs for B6, and you really don't want to compete there. They have already destroyed all of the legacies JFK-FLL. You saw how quickly they responded when VX announced SFO/LAX-FLL.

Agreed. B6 has a lock on it but I feel VX has a special niche that can work. as far as coach goes, I enjoyed JFK-LAX on VX more then I did JFK-SDQ on B6. More things to do and better food. VX could be seen as a middle tier; Cheaper then the legacies but with more to offer then AirTran, Spirit and B6. and with the flock of NY'ers to Florida in winter, I feel that it would work.

Any news to the VX ETOPS cert? Is a PDX-HNL route in our future?

FWIW, I'm much rather fly a VX 320 in Y than a UA 757 in F on this route...

No, we hasn't hear anything more news from VX lately. SO it should wait for awhile until VX is expect to be announced more new potential routes for SFO-HNL/OGG/KOA/LIH/ITO. It will bring more ETOPS overwater restrictions is 120 minutes. VX will have to be installed more lifejacket & liferaft, too.

Yes, FAA ETOPS certifications will have to be deployed on A319 or A320 aircraft. This is restrictions due to flying overwater must to have with certifications from FAA. If they will bring more extra fuel tanks to be installed for flying crossing the oceans.

Any news on Chicago?

IAD will absolutely be an east coast focus city for VX. WN is the correct model and VX will use IAD as a small spoke to other destinations. VX is learning quick that United is a weak competitor and IAD has little else to offer to such a vast market. They are not going to go head-to-head with Jet Blue yet...JFK is a quagmire. I fully expect flights in 2-3 years to appear from IAD to FLL, Caribbean, BOS, ORD, as well as the plethora of middle markets that make the east coast a bonanza in comparison to the west. As well, there will be a great opportunity to feed the VA flights to London out of IAD. DCA is only a bet if destination restrictions are lifted and slots open up...5-10 years at best.