Originally Posted by YegFan
Wrong! (1) So, YEG needs to satisfy WS plans for growth ex YYC.
Every market carries some price sensitivity. Here's an example for you:
(2) The Washington area is served by three airports. BWI happens to be the busiest in terms of passengers. And guess what: 80% of the traffic at BWI belong to Southwest. Now, can you claim that the DC area is a very price sensitive market, and no one will want to serve BWI. Wrong!
(3) The only reason why YYC is what is today, is because it is dependent on traffic connecting from throughout Western Canada. YYC has more O&D than YEG does. Not doubt. But to claim that YEG is a deadbeat market and should cater for AC and WS preference to connect pax through YYC, is not and won't fly anymo0re with ERAA.
(4) What WS spends on codeshare efforts has nothing to do with what YEG wants to do. It is a partnership. And not ERAA will do what WS dictates!
(1) In a YEG future market perspective yes ERAA should look at promoting WS YYC services that are not served nonstop from YEG. For example ERAA would do well to promote WS YEG-YYC connect to AA YYC-DFW. If 60 people per day were doing this routing, the route economics would be a lot more stable and ERAA is in a much better position to market YEG-DFW nonstop.
I am not advocating connecting through YYC where there is n/s: YEG-PHX on WS is an example. I am also advocating that ERAA promote stop the YYC habit as driving to YYC inorder to catch a flight. At this point the Edmonton vacationer is counted as a YYC pax.
(2) BWI is a good example of marketing niche. Also a good example of a very price sensitive market. BWI and IAD pull from the same/similar catchment areas and are about the same size @ 22 million pax per annum. However IAD has 6.7 million international pax per annum and 24 international airlines while BWI only manages a single BA 763 service to LHR.
The DC area is not very price sensative owing to the high yields out of DCA and IAD. However BWI is very price sensitive and were it not for WN woiuld be a PIT style ghost town. In this example its Baltimore that is very price sensative.
(3) its the strong O&D market with above average yield strength is what makes YYC market work. W Canada connection traffic is the plus factor. Hubs that do not have strong O&D markets are going by the wayside and being dehubbed. PIT, BWI, CVG, MEM, STL, MCI (the airport never to have a hub airline) and DAY are all dehubbed not because of the connection traffic but because of the weak O&D market.
Ultimately it was a strong O&D market that saved DEN from the PIT like obliteration.
As for ERAA catering to AC and WS strategic decisions, yes ERAA must cater to atleast one of the two major players. Alternately they can pick and choose their catering platforms. AC for International, WS for Transborder, both for domestic. What ERAA cannot do is piss off both AC and WS; they have publicly pissed off AC, but watch out for sleeper reaction from WS. WS does not have a history of getting into public relations fist fights, their approach is to quietly leave town before anyone notices they are gone. You want an example of WS market retreat, I give you two: YHM and YMX (Moncton). YHM was suposed to have been the LCC answer for YYZ, but when yields failed to materialize WS went publicly at first to YYZ and then quietly pulled down YHM 2 years later. YMX was suposed to have been the WS hub for Atlantic Canada with hub bypass over YHM/YYZ and to Western Canada. YMX today is pretty much a spoke to YYZ.
(4) show me an example of a market that A) picked a fight with its major player, B) won the fight and is better off service wise for it.
The list of airports that picked a fight with the airlines (refused to be dictated to) and lost include: BWI (old USAir), PIT (US), CVG (DL), MCO (DL), DEN (old CO, old WN), LAX (UA, AA, DL), SFO (WN).