08-10-2021, 12:35 PM
(08-05-2021, 07:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, I'm aware there are other factors. There always are.
The fact is, those routes left and were not replaced. If they really were wildly successful, they wouldn't have left, or at least would have attracted another airline.
They might not have been losing money outright, or at least, were providing some value to the companies, but they were clearly marginal given that they could be lost and did not attract another airline.
What other airline would be attracted... because they WERE wildly successful. In the case of AA, an executive told me they were profitable at about 15-20 pax. The plane held 53 (50 pax, 3 crew) and was full, twice daily. The issue AA had with YKF was US Pre-Clearance. They had to land at the international terminal in Chicago, then the plane was taxied over to the domestic terminal, costing them two gate fees. It still made money, but when they cancelled YKF, it became the Akron - Chicago flight, eliminating those extra fees. At the same time, extra flights were added at LBPIA (where there is pre-clearance) and they knew that we would do the hour long drive to take the same flight... which we did.
The airline industry is normally very timid, and as an exec once told me "If you take a risk on a small airport like this, and it pays off, great. If it doesn't, you are likely out of a job. Put that same flight into a Pearson like airport, and win or lose, you'll still be employed"
WestJet touted a Vancouver flight, but it did a stop in Calgary, and was essentially the same flight we have now. I don't believe they have cancelled anything. (They have done limited expansion for a 3-6 month period with extra flights, and then those have ended)
As Flair grows, the "risk" associated with RoWIA will diminish.
Coke