Las Vegas airport

Quote: Pacomartin

A great deal can be done by forcing the airlines to use planes of over 170 seats. Regional airplanes should be used at regional airports, not to fine tune financial models.

That's never going to happen.

The experience of flying in economy has been downgraded enough. To pile up on that a need to shuttle between airports would be very bad for business.

You can kick out general aviation, as some cities have done. But that's about the only category which can be removed.

[q}More emphasis must be made on checking in at remote locations and minimizing time spent at the airport. Luggage could be collected and run through security at remote locations and taken directly to the plane.

The existing airports have all the land they need for the ancillary services, it is only for runways that they are squeezed. Baggage handling, parking etc. could all be put under the runways. Not sure if this space resource is used anywhere other than some of the underground trains between terminals. Although expensive it is probably cheaper than a new airport.

Quote: Nareed

That's never going to happen.

The experience of flying in economy has been downgraded enough. To pile up on that a need to shuttle between airports would be very bad for business.

You can kick out general aviation, as some cities have done. But that's about the only category which can be removed.

That is my main point, that you can't reliably operate two airports without a massive budget. With Washington DC, they limited the downtown airport to a 1500 mile range (i.e. to major airports in Texas) and declared no widebodies or international flights permitted. I don't think there is an outright prohibition on general aviation, but it is so costly that no one would consider it. National can also play the security card, as general aviation is more likely to carry a bomb which could threaten the White house, Congress, or the Pentgon. After 9-11 a very vocal group wanted to close the downtown airport entirely.

Even with those restrictions it still took two decades before Dulles was financially solvent. Airlines will always choose the more convenient airport, and will often terminate operations if forced to go to the distant airport. Also keep in mind that Dulles couldn't be solvent until the suburbs grew around the airport making it more convenient to millions of people than going downtown. That is not going to happen in Vegas. Also the distance from Dulles to downtown is about half the distance of Ivanpah to Las Vegas.

It may be difficult to set a minimum of 170 seats for Vegas as the average is about 150. Only 36.67% of domestic passengers flew in a jet of 166 seats or more (for last month there was data). Allegiant has a common configuration of 166 seats. But eventually the small planes kill the runway.

Quote: Pacomartin

That is my main point, that you can't reliably operate two airports without a massive budget. With Washington DC, they limited the downtown airport to a 1500 mile range (i.e. to major airports in Texas) and declared no widebodies or international flights permitted.

You can limit wide bodies by making runways that will not accommodate them. remember a runway doesn't have to support normal operations, but also all kinds of contingencies. You can expel international flights by not providing any customs and immigration facilities.

Quote:

But eventually the small planes kill the runway.

We get back to meeting market demand. People want lots of frequencies, and usually this means smaller planes. We've been through this before. Also it's quite natural that is Airline X offers 15 daily flights between A and B, then Airlines Y and Z will offer a similar number of flights as well.

I've said there are lots of flights between MEX and MTY by all four airlines. Given that Aeromexico charges more than the other three, I often wondered why anyone chose to fly it. Setting aside considerations like frequent flier programs in all their complexity, image, status and perceptions of reliability, fact is three airlines cannot meet the demand. And the four airlines are different enough from each other that there will always be some people picking one over the others for a variety of reasons.

Quote: Nareed

We get back to meeting market demand. People want lots of frequencies, and usually this means smaller planes. We've been through this before. Also it's quite natural that is Airline X offers 15 daily flights between A and B, then Airlines Y and Z will offer a similar number of flights as well.

There is no such thing as "meeting market demand". The market wants to board George Jetson's car with fission power, and leave whenever he wants to fly nonstop to wherever he wants at no cost.

Every airline must work within constraints.

For instance Southwest invested in a fleet of 99 Boeing 737-800s with 175 seats. The rest of their some 600 airplanes have 143 or in some small percentage fewer seats. Obviously Southwest would in many cases prefer the smaller older plans. Not only do they get more frequency because of fewer seats, there is less pressure to fill them.

At Vegas airport 17.4% of their available seats are the 175 seat model and they average 87.3% full. The smaller airframes are the rest of the seats, and are only 81% full on average. So only 14.7% of their departures and takeoffs are with the larger model.

Now almost all of the 488 orders and options that Southwest has are for planes of 175 seats or more. About 130 smaller planes are due to be retired in the next five years.

A size constraint to force bigger capacity with the objective of squeezing another five years of life out of the airport may be the only way.

Quote: Pacomartin

There is no such thing as "meeting market demand". The market wants to board George Jetson's car with fission power, and leave whenever he wants to fly nonstop to wherever he wants at no cost.

And if someone could produce such a vehicle, and the FAA allowed it to operate, they'd be rich enough to buy Bill Gates and Warren Buffet without a discount :)

Alas, flying is terribly complex and unintuitive compared to driving, even with the aid of computers and automation. Therefore it will be a very long time before personal planes anyone can learn to fly in three easy 1-hour lessons and a little practice are sold at local dealerships.

But I'll agree to this: the "market" is really several markets.

Not everyone looks for the same thing in flights. some look for the lowest fare, others for a decent experience, others for the luxury of business and first class, etc. But if there is one thing common to all markets is the desire for flexible schedules. More so on business routes, but to some extent in tourist/leisure routes as well.

And that means lots of little planes rather than a few big ones.

Quote: Nareed

Not everyone looks for the same thing in flights. some look for the lowest fare, others for a decent experience, others for the luxury of business and first class, etc. But if there is one thing common to all markets is the desire for flexible schedules. More so on business routes, but to some extent in tourist/leisure routes as well.
And that means lots of little planes rather than a few big ones.

We seem to be having this little discrepancy between what the customer desires, and what the airport authority needs to function.

Switching airports for a minute from Las Vegas to San Diego. San Diego is different than Las Vegas in that it has a single runway that is operational. They also had a considerably higher profile campaign where voters were asked to vote on a new airport. Unlike Las Vegas where the land has been purchased, the Airport authority hired PR firms to convince the voters that the only possible alternative was Miramar, the military base. The voters were supposed to approve the plan, and armed with a positive vote, the Airport Authority planned to lobby Washington to force the military to move some operations to another base, and make room for a shared military/civilian airport. The voters widely perceived the plan as flawed and an usurpation of the rights of the military and voted it down.

Now San Diego has an average number of seats per aircraft for domestic flights of 139, instead of the 150 at Las Vegas. Remember that Southwest Airlines is the dominant airline at both these airports, and the overwhelming majority of their aircraft have 143 seats. So given that SAN has only one runway, the unconstrained market flies even smaller planes to SAN than LAS.

When I say "unconstrained" market, there are no financial incentives/penalties to fly bigger planes. Those usually take the form of paying for runway slots, instead of paying a landing fee based on weight of the plane. Obviously if you have two planes, and one has 5X the number of seats, and you charge them the same fee for landing, the cost per seat of the small plane goes way up.

Neither airport has many domestic widebodies. Basically both SAN and LAS flies one widebody A330-200 to Hawaii daily, and one B767 to Atlanta daily (with a few more for busy days).

One runway. You still have the desire to land private jets, and to have more flexible schedules. But you are constrained to one runway. We are not talking about switching to widebodies, just bigger narrowbodies.

Quote: Pacomartin

One runway. You still have the desire to land private jets, and to have more flexible schedules. But you are constrained to one runway.

There are limits to everything.

Quote:

We are not talking about switching to widebodies, just bigger narrowbodies.

That's also not easy or cheap to do. How many planes does Southwest operate? The capital investment per plane is huge(*). They won't just switch over to the biggest B-737 Boeing makes. And they certainly wont' switch en-masse to the A321neo.

As a point in my side, Boeing is not even thinking about a replacement for the 757, which fits as the larger narrow body.

Now, suppose san Diego draws a line in the sand and says "Absolutely no aircraft under 150 seats. Southwest, I'm looking at you!"

What does Southwest do? Probably move flights from SAN to Tijuana and finally provide the push to finish the inter-border passenger bridge there.

(*) I'm aware most planes flying are leased, and not the property of the airlines. But I imagine these leases carry years-long commitments, given the large capital costs of planes.

Quote: Nareed

That's also not easy or cheap to do. How many planes does Southwest operate? The capital investment per plane is huge(*). They won't just switch over to the biggest B-737 Boeing makes. And they certainly wont' switch en-masse to the A321neo.

Southwest has 596 smaller B737s, and 99 B737-800s with 175 seats apiece. They have 54 of the smaller B737s on order but the next 206 planes on order are of the larger kind.

I doubt very much if an outright prohibition would hold up in court, so you would gradually increase the landing fees over a five year period on smaller capacity jets. That would encourage Southwest to begin using the larger jets at San Diego airport, and assign the newer jets there as they are procured.

Southwest flies to 96 airports. Now if a significant number of these airports started doing the same thing, it might be a real problem. But if only one does that, then it should be OK.

Allegiant Airlines consist of a fleet of mostly MD-80s with 166 seats, although they are purchasing old A319s with 156 seats

The biggest problem at San Diego is the desire to operate a tiny plane, often with 30 seats, every 15 or 30 minutes on the 126 mile route to LAX.


Allegiant Air 702.505.8888 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
American Airlines 800.433.7300 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
Delta Airlines 800.221.1212 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
Hawaiian Airlines 800.367.5320 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
JetBlue Airways 800.538.2583 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
Spirit Airlines 801.401.2222 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
Sun Country Airlines 800.359.6786 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
United Airlines 800.864.8331 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
Virgin America 877.359.8474 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
Alaska Airlines 800.252.7522 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
Frontier Airlines 800.432.1359 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
SeaPort Airlines 888.573.2767 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
Southwest Airlines 800.435.9792 4:45 AM - 12:00 AM

Air Canada 888.247.2262 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
British Airways 800.247.9297 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
Japan Airlines 800.525.3663 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
Volaris 866.988.3527 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM
WestJet 888.937.8538 4:00 AM - 12:00 AM


Currently, the only flight from Tijuana to the USA is a Volaris flight to Oakland. The pedestrian bridge may encourage some people in southern San Diego county to walk over the bridge and fly from TIJ, but it would have to be people who are used to going through customs as they would be going through customs twice to make a domestic flight.

There is an airport with a large runway owned by the City of San Diego (called Brown Field) that is only two miles from the Tijuana airport. Perhaps with the bridge, Volaris could set up an American division (like Virgin America) and operate out of that airport as well.



Brown Field and Tijuana Airport


Volaris operates to 20 US destinations. They could fly to some from Brown Field. There is about a million people in south SD county.
Phoenix Sacramento Houston New York City
Fresno San Jose San Antonio Portland
Los Angeles Las Vegas Dallas Denver
Oakland Reno/Tahoe Orlando Chicago
Ontario San Diego Fort Lauderdale Chicago

The pedestrian bridge will open in a few weeks.

Quote: Pacomartin

S

There is an airport with a large runway owned by the City of San Diego (called Brown Field) that is only two miles from the Tijuana airport. Perhaps with the bridge, Volaris could set up an American division (like Virgin America) and operate out of that airport as well.

Does Montgomery field north of San Diego have runways long enough to land smaller commercial jets?