HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2007, 10:56 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Duck and covfefe
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sunshine and taco trucks on every corner
Posts: 44,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewDizzle View Post
Wow, a lot of big ballers in here too good to walk on the tarmac or pick up their baggage.
No kidding. Guess what your grandparents had to do! If flying to Mexico for 10 bucks to see crystal blue waters, beautiful beaches, gorgeous towns and people and enjoying cheap prices in the tourist traps means carrying my own baggage to and from the plane, then I'm OK with that.
__________________
it's just a jump to the left and then a step to the right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2007, 11:08 PM
Mikey711MN's Avatar
Mikey711MN Mikey711MN is offline
I am so smart, S-M-R-T!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Moved south to Austin, TX
Posts: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookem View Post
It's the RyanAir business model.. in fact, they are the majority owners.
To clear up some facts here, from vivaAerobus's own website...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vivaAerobus
vivaaerobus.com has been formed in Mexico as a strategic alliance between the Mexican bus group, IAMSA (Inversionistas en Autotransportes Mexicanos SA de CV), and the Irish backed RyanMex, the investment company of Dr. Tony Ryan, his family and other low cost aviation specialists.

IAMSA is the biggest passenger bus transportation operator in Mexico .

RyanMex is part of the investment fund of the Irish Ryan family, whose President is Dr. Tony Ryan, founder of Ryanair 21 years ago.

Dr Ryan was also founder of GPA (Guinness Peat Aviation) and is also a significant investor in Tiger Airways ( Singapore ) and Allegiant Air (USA).
In other words, yes, the same Ryan guy founded RyanAir on the same principles that this airline will operate. But no, RyanAir does NOT own vivaAerobus. While I'm not familiar with the particulars of Mexican cabotage, I can't imagine that their rules would allow for such an arrangement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2007, 11:42 PM
nixcity's Avatar
nixcity nixcity is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX.
Posts: 689
My wife and I have been all over Mexico but we've only been to Puebla from all of the cities on the list. If it only lasts 8-12 months that gives us plenty of time to visit each of these destinations.
Actually, I think we could make this work here. Nobody has mentioned UT as having an impact on the number of passengers. Now we just need a light rail line to connect it to downtown and on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2007, 12:27 AM
Schertz1 Schertz1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbeiter View Post
Someone has no concept of the European/Asian low-cost business model. You also have no concept of upper middle class Mexicans either - many of the tertiary airports in Mexico doesn't even have jetways. One thing is for sure, plenty of San Antonians will be making the drive up to Austin for the cheap airfare.
The fact that many airports in Mexico lack jet ways and/or bridges is not the point. $@&&, many airports in the U.S are the same. The point is Upper-class Mexicans will not fly on an airline developed to service migrant workers. As far as illegal immigrants using the airline to travel back home, it will be difficult. You cannot go to Mexico without a passport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2007, 1:27 AM
arbeiter's Avatar
arbeiter arbeiter is offline
passion for patterns
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schertz1 View Post
The fact that many airports in Mexico lack jet ways and/or bridges is not the point. $@&&, many airports in the U.S are the same. The point is Upper-class Mexicans will not fly on an airline developed to service migrant workers. As far as illegal immigrants using the airline to travel back home, it will be difficult. You cannot go to Mexico without a passport.
The airline wasn't developed to 'service' migrant workers - no idea where you came up with that. You were the one that mentioned having to walk on the tarmac, not me, I was just pointing out that it's not something Mexicans would be necessarily unfamiliar with, nor would it be to Americans - for the price I think most people would deal with it.

Being from a San Antonio suburb near IH-35, you of all people should know that Mexicans drive hundreds of miles, from Monterrey or farther (I see a lot of Jalisco and D.F. plates as well) to come shop at our outlet malls. Don't you think this would appeal to them as well? I bet it's much cheaper to fly and rent a car than to drive their VW Pointers all the way and wait in a long line at the border.

Middle-class Mexicans on Easter shopping holidays, Mexican-Americans with family in Mexico, legal Mexican immigrants (even some illegal ones who fly one-way), American tourists are all potential customers of these flights. It's obvious that there's a potential here, otherwise GE Capital wouldn't have gotten behind it.

Years ago, in the UK people wouldn't have ever considered flying to Alghero, Graz, Gdansk, Mulhouse, or wherever the hell RyanAir flies these days - but due to how cheap it is, people just go for the sake of going. My cousin has been to some pretty off-the-wall places just because it's $50 to go there. I flew to Salzburg one time just because I could! No doubt this kind of potential exists in America as well, and Austin will be at the vanguard of what I hope is a successful concept.
__________________
you should know that I'm womanly wise
my website/blog. or, my flickr site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2007, 2:18 AM
Schertz1 Schertz1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 479
You are incorrect on this. This airline specializes in transporting migrants from Southern Mexico and Central/South America to the U.S. Border. It is much faster and cheaper than traveling through Mexico. This is a well-known fact and the butt of many jokes in Mexico. You should do a search on it if you do not believe it. They call it migrantair.

Mexico is a class conscience Nation, more so than the U.S. I do not see people with money traveling beside people they consider beneath them to save a few dollars.

The airline may benefit from U.S. citizens wanting an inexpensive vacation, but it probably will not mean an influx of Mexican tourist or shoppers.


I do not live in San Antonio I live in Houston. I went to high school and college there, but I live in Houston.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2007, 2:28 AM
texastarkus texastarkus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Far Sub-Urban San Antonio
Posts: 395
....You should do a search on it if you do not believe it. They call it migrantair....


Air Wisconsin is fondly called "DAIRY AIR"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2007, 2:59 AM
Shasta Shasta is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Boston and Houston
Posts: 1,514
Leon/Guanajuato is a touristy place. That airport serves San Miguel, "Mexico's Santa Fe!"

Lots of Texans head to the mountains in that region to vacation. Great climate. Colonial architecture. Food. Shopping for tiles to import back to tile their bathrooms and kitchens on Lake Travis...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2007, 4:05 AM
WallerCreekView WallerCreekView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbeiter View Post
IF they called it "AeroMigra" I might believe you.
"Among travelers, it's jokingly known as Aeromigrante - Migrant Air."

http://www.banderasnews.com/0710/nr-migrantair.htm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2007, 1:44 AM
potts potts is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 52
I too am surprised this service wasn't awarded to San Antonio. SA has a higher population and a much higher percentage of Mexicans than does AUS. Can't wait to see what happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2007, 12:22 PM
Major AWACS's Avatar
Major AWACS Major AWACS is offline
I'm one fathom tall
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sicilia (Sicily) 6 months a year/ Texas 6 months a year
Posts: 4,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbeiter View Post
Actually, commuters do use Easyjet - I know of a few companies who use them routinely. And it is a good concept, I don't know what you're talking about - it has brought tourism to off-the-wall places, is a huge factor in the reverse immigration from the Baltics/Eastern Europe to England.
Easyjet and Ryanair are not the same, similar but not the same. I know I have flown them both. And commuters do not like airlines that have 60% ontime arrival rates and cancel flights with little recourse which happens often. The new EU compensation not-withstanding.

It is a good concept in some markets, not North America. I can suggest some reading if you want to learn about the subject more.

If the airline makes markeeting work in Mexico they might survive, but not in the form you see stated in the OP.

And from what I read ABIA gave the land for this terminal away with an abatement land better used for cargo and GA. expansion.

Hey I hope it works good for them, but those of us with any knowledge of the airline business think it will be an uphill battle.
And not all the tickets will be $5. A few seats will be cheap then the fare buckets go up accordingly

Ciao,
AWACS
__________________
The TSA is the worst workfare program in US gov't history, and is full of feckless hacks who think the 4th amend. stops at airports. TSA delenda est!!
Does your city have a statue of a guy on a horse? All good cities have statues of guys on horses.

Io sempre voglio la fica della mia mogile.

Last edited by Major AWACS; Nov 12, 2007 at 12:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2007, 7:06 PM
hookem hookem is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt AWACS View Post
And from what I read ABIA gave the land for this terminal away with an abatement land better used for cargo and GA. expansion.
From what I've read, although passenger traffic is up at ABIA, cargo traffic is way down... and GA makes no money. Perhaps that's why they chose to allow the land use for the new terminal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2007, 7:53 PM
Major AWACS's Avatar
Major AWACS Major AWACS is offline
I'm one fathom tall
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sicilia (Sicily) 6 months a year/ Texas 6 months a year
Posts: 4,220
GA makes big bucks. As a licensed commercial corporate pilot and GA pilot I can tell you that first hand. Hanger rental on space like that especially since austin corporate closed, will make big money. See the problem is people are not taking the rosey Austin glasses off for a second. Personally I think it is great and folks will snap up the ten 10$ tickets everyday however as airline models go in North America this has yet to come close to turning a profit. I wish them luck but I am a realist. Others with plenty of airline experiance seem to agree. Don't confuse, as many on this board do, my critical eye on this plan, as some aspersion at austin. I wish the planwell. Good luck getting ICE folks to treat the pax with any level of respect BTW. The PIA flight at IAH was hurt by bad ICE perceptions (among other ythings)
Well I am typing on the blackberry and costing myself a fortune so I will continue this from a real computer later (with a real keyboard!!!.
Ciao,a
AWACS
A
__________________
The TSA is the worst workfare program in US gov't history, and is full of feckless hacks who think the 4th amend. stops at airports. TSA delenda est!!
Does your city have a statue of a guy on a horse? All good cities have statues of guys on horses.

Io sempre voglio la fica della mia mogile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2007, 8:22 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Former Admin
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 20,438
ryannair is terrible if you had to use it on a regular basis. using it once in a while for a long weekend is fine but couldn't imagine it for commuting purposes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2007, 4:58 AM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,124
City & Southwest in dispute over low-cost terminal

KXAN Channel 36, the local NBC affiliate here in Austin, ran a story on the 6 pm news this evening which claimed WN is having a dispute with local airport officials concerning lower terminal fees the airport plans to charge ultra-low-cost carriers (so far only Viva Aerobus) who elect to operate out of the low-cost terminal currently under construction on the other side of the airport from the main terminal where Southwest and all the other airlines are located. Here is the gist of the report that aired:

A letter was sent to airport officials from a vice-president of Southwest which says that a new low-cost terminal will provide other airlines with a "substantial cost advantage," while Southwest is bound by their lease agreement to use the more expensive facilities in the main terminal. The letter goes on to note that Southwest's lease agreement with AUS stipulates they (WN) should pay the same terminal fees as all other airlines. Obviously, WN's lease agreement was signed before the city decided to lease land to GE to build and operate the new low-cost terminal.

In the city's response to Southwest, the city's aviation director says that things are completely different for Southwest because they fly from a different terminal. The city also claims they can charge lower terminal fees for carriers using the low-cost terminal because the city will not be providing baggage claim services, jetways and other amenities that they currently provide airlines using the main terminal.

The Austin City Council is set to discuss the issue tomorrow in a closed session.

I was unable to find a link to the text version of this story on the station's website, but if you follow this link you should be able to watch the same video report I saw earlier.

http://www.kxan.com/Global/category.asp?C=4427

Look for "Tension between Southwest Airlines and ABIA" The story lasts about two and a half minutes.

If the city were talking about charging lower landing fees for new carriers, then I would be more sympathetic towards Southwest's point of view, but I personally don't have a problem with any of the ultra low-cost carrier being charged a lower gate/ticket counter/terminal fee for using an inferior terminal. I'm kind of disappointed with Southwest's position on this issue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2007, 6:55 AM
hookem hookem is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,351
This is not entirely unusual for Southwest, they have a history of preemptive anti competitive behavior. They killed the Texas High-Speed rail system in the early 90's. They have much litigation and lobbying experience from all those years wrangling the Wright amendment in Dallas. They will probably succeed in either lowering their terminal fees or raising the low-cost terminal's (even if that effectively kills the Viva Aerobus deal.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2007, 9:22 AM
Mikey711MN's Avatar
Mikey711MN Mikey711MN is offline
I am so smart, S-M-R-T!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Moved south to Austin, TX
Posts: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike View Post
KXAN Channel 36, the local NBC affiliate here in Austin, ran a story on the 6 pm news this evening which claimed WN is having a dispute with local airport officials concerning lower terminal fees the airport plans to charge ultra-low-cost carriers (so far only Viva Aerobus) who elect to operate out of the low-cost terminal currently under construction on the other side of the airport from the main terminal where Southwest and all the other airlines are located. Here is the gist of the report that aired:

A letter was sent to airport officials from a vice-president of Southwest which says that a new low-cost terminal will provide other airlines with a "substantial cost advantage," while Southwest is bound by their lease agreement to use the more expensive facilities in the main terminal. The letter goes on to note that Southwest's lease agreement with AUS stipulates they (WN) should pay the same terminal fees as all other airlines. Obviously, WN's lease agreement was signed before the city decided to lease land to GE to build and operate the new low-cost terminal.

In the city's response to Southwest, the city's aviation director says that things are completely different for Southwest because they fly from a different terminal. The city also claims they can charge lower terminal fees for carriers using the low-cost terminal because the city will not be providing baggage claim services, jetways and other amenities that they currently provide airlines using the main terminal.

The Austin City Council is set to discuss the issue tomorrow in a closed session.

I was unable to find a link to the text version of this story on the station's website, but if you follow this link you should be able to watch the same video report I saw earlier.

http://www.kxan.com/Global/category.asp?C=4427

Look for "Tension between Southwest Airlines and ABIA" The story lasts about two and a half minutes.

If the city were talking about charging lower landing fees for new carriers, then I would be more sympathetic towards Southwest's point of view, but I personally don't have a problem with any of the ultra low-cost carrier being charged a lower gate/ticket counter/terminal fee for using an inferior terminal. I'm kind of disappointed with Southwest's position on this issue.
I knew this looked familiar!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2007, 10:27 AM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey711MN View Post
I knew this looked familiar!
But of course.

KXAN finally updated its' website. Below is a link to text version of the story, the video that ran on the local news last night and copies (pdf files) of WN's letter to AUS and the airport's response to Southwest.

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=7490590&nav=0s3d

One discrepancy I noticed is that Southwest's letter to the city seems to indicate that the required discussions between the airport and the incumbent carriers haven't taken place, yet the city's response claims that they have.

Reading both letters, it doesn't sound like either side is going to back down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2007, 3:41 PM
DrewDizzle DrewDizzle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookem View Post
This is not entirely unusual for Southwest, they have a history of preemptive anti competitive behavior. They killed the Texas High-Speed rail system in the early 90's. They have much litigation and lobbying experience from all those years wrangling the Wright amendment in Dallas. They will probably succeed in either lowering their terminal fees or raising the low-cost terminal's (even if that effectively kills the Viva Aerobus deal.)
Well, if that's the case: fuck Southwest Airlines. Competition is good for the consumer - high speed rail would have been the tits - and SWA can eat a bag.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2007, 5:18 PM
arbeiter's Avatar
arbeiter arbeiter is offline
passion for patterns
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,341
seriously! i haven't flown southwest since 2003. i was always pissed off at them for killing the bullet train. i haven't found them to be significantly cheaper, ever - using kayak or one of the main travel sites, i can usually find a major airline that costs the same, or jetblue, which is way better. the ironic thing is that people perceive them as hyper competitive, when they're in fact not.
__________________
you should know that I'm womanly wise
my website/blog. or, my flickr site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:16 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.