On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:02:58 +0000, John Kulp wrote:

No airline flies from say POU to ATL (ie. there is no airline
service
at POU), but several airlines fly from LGA to ATL. Anyone going from
POU to ATL needs to drive 90 miles to LGA to then fly to ATL. The
airline derives revenue from that person for the LGA to ATL flight.
That's how the airline derives revenue from a maket (POU) that it
doesn't serve.

I see what you mean now, but it's a bit bizarre. By this analysis,
anytime anyone drives from a podunk town to an airport served by a major
they should be counted as indirect revenue.

I don't see it as "indirect", so in that sense I agree that this label is
odd to me. But it certainly is revenue.

First, there is no way of
measuring this that I can think of.

Does it need to be measured for the airlines to - intelligently, I
believe - be concerned? However, it's pretty easy given the proper data
to at least get a perspective. These flights are partially identifiable,
with some false positives and with no way to do this at the destination
side, by comparing home/work zip codes with the airport's location.
Imperfect, but it does help provide a picture.

[Hmm. If airlines and ground transport firms (car rental, limo, etc.)
share data than an even better picture can be constructed.]

They are profiting with record loads.
Leave the junk to these guys and go after the cream. It has worked very
well.

First: are they "profiting"? High load doesn't necessarily translate to
this (ie. the old "make it up in volume" myth).

Next: Yes, they've optimized. Passengers pay for this optimization. One
such payment is in the ground travel. The "problem" for the future is
that there may be an alternative which is cheaper for the passenger when
the ground travel is considered. This eliminates that as a source of
savings for the airlines.

[...]


This is part of the reason, of course, but not all. Other factors are
the government ripping off the trust fund money that was supposed to go
to improving airports, a lousy, inefficient ATC systerm, etc.

I'm curious how you see these applying. Would the airlines still be
serving smaller markets if the trust fund money were being spent on those
airports? How is an inefficient ATC making it the proper choice to put
more/smaller aircraft in the air at fewer airports?

And, of
course, better loads means better money to a point. But sometimes, they
have lost money on 100% loads because costs were too high. That why
they abandoned a bunch of them.

Higher loads mean more profit iff there's profit on the service.
Competition can make this tough, as margins are shaved.

[...]

So would I. No one will stay in business long running unprofitably.

Nobody disagrees - as far as I can see - that the airlines have not
behaved in their own individual best interests. But, with regard to
airport delays, there's a commons problem. And with regard to the
potential for competition from the VLJs, I think it wise for the airlines
to be worried.

That doesn't mean, though, that actions in their best interests are in
mine (or in the best interests of the pool of potential aviation
passengers).

- Andrew