AUSTIN | ABIA Updates

[Major AWACS]

Originally Posted by arbeiter

Can anyone explain to me why a shuttle from Ellington Field to IAH was ever successful? Traffic has never been bad enough that an hour or 2 hour drive (at the very, very worst) would not be better than a flight.

It was succesful for years and was normally free!!
Free parking, no drive across town, 500 One pass miles for a 20 mile flight, quick security.

Ciao,
AWACS

[misterno]

Capt AWACS

Thanks so much for all the information. I have to admit I am just getting to learn these things.

There is one thing I want to add though. The reason there is a bilateral aggreement limiting 2 airlines per country flying to each other is that; Mexico used to be very weak in terms of number and quality of airline service. So Mexican officials did not want giant US airline companies to conquer airline service between 2 countries. I read this somewhere on the internet but please correct me if I am wrong.

Now as for today there are over 15 airlines operating in Mexico. Hopefully Mesican officials will take this into account there will be more airline companies allowed to fly between 2 countries.

But until then I am stuck with the muddy waters of Galveston. God, I am missing the blue and clear waters and fresh delicious food of a third world country. It is 2 hrs flight but yet costs arm and leg. I hate these bilateral aggreement crap.

[Major AWACS]

Originally Posted by misterno

Capt AWACS

Thanks so much for all the information. I have to admit I am just getting to learn these things.

There is one thing I want to add though. The reason there is a bilateral aggreement limiting 2 airlines per country flying to each other is that; Mexico used to be very weak in terms of number and quality of airline service. So Mexican officials did not want giant US airline companies to conquer airline service between 2 countries. I read this somewhere on the internet but please correct me if I am wrong.

Now as for today there are over 15 airlines operating in Mexico. Hopefully Mesican officials will take this into account there will be more airline companies allowed to fly between 2 countries.

But until then I am stuck with the muddy waters of Galveston. God, I am missing the blue and clear waters and fresh delicious food of a third world country. It is 2 hrs flight but yet costs arm and leg. I hate these bilateral aggreement crap.

Oh Galveston isn't so bad :-)

I agree the treaty limits should be changed or better yet open skies. The Bermuda II agreement really held back Heathrow service from Houston, now Houston will have many many choices to London, which is great for those of us in Business.

As for an update Aviacsa is ending service to Houston in a week, so we could see another Mexican carrier come in on both the Monterrey and Mexico City routes soon so you could get your wish on some routes.

however, due to higher operating costs, the smaller Mexican airports will be "pricey" for service from Houston due to higher costs to operate Regional Jets, but that non-stop service is better than connecting IMO.

Ciao,
AWACS

[MAH4546]

In 2005 the U.S.-Mexico air treaty was expanded to allow three airlines from each side to fly to resort towns - Acapulco, Cancun, Cozumel, Ixtapa, Mazatlan, Merida, Puerto Vallarta, San Jose del Cabo.

Effective last week - 1 January 2008 - three airlines from each side are allowed to fly on each route between the U.S. and both Guadalajara and Monterrey.

[misterno]

Vivaaerobus is planning to charge $10+tax for Austin and still make money and on the other hand last time I looked Aviacsa was charging $400 almost the same route and yet exiting the business.

Something does not make sense. What am I missing here?

[Major AWACS]

Viva aerobus will not charge 10 for ever ticket. Only the first few. It is marketing. Kind of like Skybus or Ryanair.

Ciao,
AWACS

[misterno]

Originally Posted by Capt AWACS

Viva aerobus will not charge 10 for ever ticket. Only the first few. It is marketing. Kind of like Skybus or Ryanair.

Ciao,
AWACS

True not every ticket, but look at Sipirit Air or others, there is so much sale going on for less than $10, it is unbelievable. Sooner or later I would catch a deal. The good part is buy the ticket now fly 6 months from today.

God, I hate continental.

[arbeiter]

Originally Posted by misterno

True not every ticket, but look at Sipirit Air or others, there is so much sale going on for less than $10, it is unbelievable. Sooner or later I would catch a deal. The good part is buy the ticket now fly 6 months from today.

God, I hate continental.

Ryanair sometimes actually will end upbeing only about $10 each way, but those are only on the 99 cent or $1.99 flights under 2 hours in length - I got a round trip London Stansted - Salzburg for about $35 round trip with tax once. But the reason this works is because of the EU's open skies laws; there is no equivalent for Mexico, so I can't imagine their flights being anything less than $70 round trip.

[Major AWACS]

Originally Posted by misterno

True not every ticket, but look at Sipirit Air or others, there is so much sale going on for less than $10, it is unbelievable. Sooner or later I would catch a deal. The good part is buy the ticket now fly 6 months from today.

God, I hate continental.

you seem to hate Continental because there prices are inline with other normal and legacy carriers. Airlines cannot sell all there tickets at ten bucks and survive. It just doesn't work that way. I love Continental. They connect me to the world non-stop, I have Presidents Club membership, firsdt class upgrades and platinum status. For business travellers like me Continental is ranked #1 nationally all the time.
For spring breakers, bargin hunters and the like I am sure cheaper fares are desired but airlines just can't make money that way. Even Ryanair charges 100s for some walk up tickets. That is just how fare buckets work.
Skybus in the US only has 5-10 seats at $10 the rest are the same prices as other airlines. The airlines can see each others fares and available seats it is no secret.

But I, like everyone else love a bargin, don't get me wrong. I fly Europe to the US and back about once a month. Sometimes I pay cheaper fares living in Europe. For the same flight with a US address I could pay more. Sometimes it is vice versa. Airfares are crazy things.

Ciao,
AWACS

[arbeiter]

Originally Posted by Capt AWACS

you seem to hate Continental because there prices are inline with other normal and legacy carriers. Airlines cannot sell all there tickets at ten bucks and survive. It just doesn't work that way. I love Continental. They connect me to the world non-stop, I have Presidents Club membership, firsdt class upgrades and platinum status. For business travellers like me Continental is ranked #1 nationally all the time.
For spring breakers, bargin hunters and the like I am sure cheaper fares are desired but airlines just can't make money that way. Even Ryanair charges 100s for some walk up tickets. That is just how fare buckets work.
Skybus in the US only has 5-10 seats at $10 the rest are the same prices as other airlines. The airlines can see each others fares and available seats it is no secret.

But I, like everyone else love a bargin, don't get me wrong. I fly Europe to the US and back about once a month. Sometimes I pay cheaper fares living in Europe. For the same flight with a US address I could pay more. Sometimes it is vice versa. Airfares are crazy things.

Ciao,
AWACS

Exactly. Continental has been okay to me every time I fly them, even though I don't fly them nearly as often as you. They're one of the only American carriers that has decent standards on their international service. What I would like to see is some of the larger carriers go the way of Aer Lingus - that is, remain a mass-market brand but dramatically simplify their pricing structure and operate a more transparent, everyday low price kind of thing, even if the price isn't always as low as Ryanair or something. Often times it's only a bit more and the extra luxury is worth it.

[DrewDizzle]

you seem to hate Continental because there prices are inline with other normal and legacy carriers.

They're inline with other over-inflated, capital-hemorrhaging airlines, you're right.

Airlines cannot sell all there tickets at ten bucks and survive.

Hell, airlines can't seem to sell their tickets at $300 and survive. I wish the government would just let the market work and stop the airline bailouts.

[Trae]

Continental has won countless awards in the past three years. They are a great airline.

[misterno]

Originally Posted by Trae

Continental has won countless awards in the past three years. They are a great airline.

we do not want award winning airlines

we need cheap and reliable airlines

Who cares about awards for services if only the upper middle class and above can afford.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by Trae

Continental has won countless awards in the past three years. They are a great airline.

Originally Posted by misterno

we do not want award winning airlines

we need cheap and reliable airlines

Who cares about awards for services if only the upper middle class and above can afford.

Well, why can't both airlines co-exist and compete? Seems to me that each airline is targeting different customers.

Continental and AeroMexico compete for the Fortune 500 crowd and the upper-middle class & middle class that can plan ahead and they charge higher fares, but in return their customers get better, more comfortable terminals, with jet loading bridges, automated baggage handling, a frequent flyer program, elite lounges, potential upgrades to first class, more frequent schedules at convenient times, the opportunity for numerous connections at the legacy's hub(s) etc. And a part of everyone's fare helps to pay for all those extra little perks, regardless of whether they fly (or spend) enough to be upgraded to first class, earn award trips, or maintain membership at the elite club.

Right now, Viva Aerobus competes for the more price-concious folks or folks who can't plan ahead and gives a cheaper fare in exchange for a bare-bones terminal with ramp boarding, a low-tech baggage delivery that may take longer (and one you have to pay extra for), no frequent flyer programs, no award trips, no first class, less frequent schedules at possibly inconvenient times, no elite clubs, etc.

And if you read Viva Aerobus FAQ on their website, they don't even allow you to make a connection to another Viva AeroBus flight in Monterrey. Try and make a reservation from Qeretaro to Juarez, or Morelia to Guadalajara. You can't. They are strictly a point to point carrier from Monterrey to 22 destinations and back to Monterrey.

It's not too much of an issue for AUS because Viva AeroBus would have nonstop service to six destinations - not just Monterrey, like most of the other Viva AeroBus cities in Mexico do now.

Of course, that could change at some point in the future as they expand their network. If you think about it, Southwest didn't offer connections for about 5 or 6 years. The first 4 years they only flew between Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas so there was nowhere to connect to. Harlingen was added in 1975 and even then, I don't think Southwest offered connecting service just nonstop and one-stop point to point service between the four cities.

I don't think they started offering connecting service until about 1977 when they added Lubbock, Midland-Odessa, El Paso, Corpus Christi and Austin into their network.

Southwest operated fewer overall routes in their first several growth years, but the ones they did operate they operated at a greater frequency.

Viva AeroBus if the opposite. They offer lots of destinations, but with little frequency in each market. - usually 1 or 2 daily flights, sometimes less.

If the marketplace is supposed to be about choices, then let passengers choose. Right now, we only have the legacy choice. Viva Aerobus would give Central Texans and our potential visitors from Mexico another choice with regards to price.

Both airlines have to the potential to increase tourism, and convention center business in Central Texas by attracting a diverse mix of visitors. More visitors would help fill all those hotel rooms we've recently built or have planned for contructions. More hotel guests in the downtown area would also help support the Second St. District and other retail in the downtown core and as-yet un-opened ground floor retail planned in a lot of the residential towers, and they wouldn't necessarily have that big of an impact on the traffic issue.

Here's something else to think about.

The basic idea of their business plan is explained in their CEO Mike Szuc's resume, submitted as part of the application to the US DOT back in August, 2007.

http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.c...docketid=28919

scroll down to page 39 of the pdf document.)

Viva Aerobus commenced commercial operations on 30th November, 2006. Viva Aerobus is a low cost carrier with the purpose of providing air travel to all of the people of Mexico. The airline is based in Monterrey and currently flies five 737-300 aircraft to 22 destinations. in Mexico. The fleet will expand to 10 by the end of 2007, and then a further 10 in each of 2008 and 2009.

In 2006, only 4% of the Mexican population was able to fly due to the high prices on offer from the then existing carriers. Viva Aerobus has been able to stimulate huge volumes of new traffic by lowering prices dramtically. In the first six months of operation, Viva AeroBus flew at a load factor of 75% confirming that there is huge demand in Mexico for real low cost carriers.

Also from their application:

The company is approximately 75% owned by a subsidiary of the Mexcian bus transportation company, Inversionistas en Autotranportes Mexicanos SA de CV ("IAMSA") and approximately 25% owned by the Ryan Mex Group. As the biggest passenger bus transportation operator in Mexico, IAMS serves 20 of the 31 Mexican states, transporting 260 million passengers annually, with 9000 buses and 389 stations

So this bus company obviously thinks they can fly people as cheaply as the they could transport them by bus. I'm not sure what amount of the 260 million is trans-border traffic, but the bottom line (as Jim Smith likes to say to the City Council) if their plan works, it would have to potential to greatly increase AUS's international passenger number.

Will their plan work? Who knows. They're applying for a foreign carrier permit, which would also allow them to transport freight and mail. Would the extra revenue from that, help offset lower revenues from rock-bottom fares? Some of their costs (like fuel) are fixed, but could they save enough in other areas to offset that?

And if Viva AeroBus (or any other foreign ultra-low-cost carrier) fail to become profitable and file for bankruptcy, Austin's not at risk, and it's not like the US Government is going have to bail them out. So they might as well try.

[LoneStarMike]

In his presentation to the City Council, Jim Smith said "Everybody who flies at the airport pays the same fees so that cannot be modified." In his response letter to Southwest he wrote "...users of the GECAS facility will pay the same airfield charges (landing fees, RON charges, etc) as users of the Barbara Jordan Terminal. Those fees make up for the majority of the costs of carriers operating at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.

If you go here:

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/austinair...aus_fall07.pdf

and scroll down to Page 2, on the right hand side of the page, it shows the different rates the airlines pay at AUS as of October 2006. Most rates are the same, but the landing fees can differ depending on whether or not the airline is a signatory carrier. Signatory carriers at AUS pay a landing fee of $2.92 per 1,000 lbs. of maximum landed aircraft weight, while Non-Signatory carriers pay a fee of $5.84 per 1,000 lbs. of maximum landed aircraft weight.

I'm not really up on the differences between the two, but I was under the impression that a signatory carrier was one who signed a long-term lease with the airport (at least a year) for it's gates, apron space, etc, while a non-signatory carrier might lease the same on on a month-to-month or per-use basis.

Looking at the Nov. 5 press release on ABIA's website, it says:

The simple nature of the [ULCC] terminal---such as no jet bridges or sophisticated baggage handling system, and common use hold rooms, gates and ticket counter areas---positions Austin to better compete for air service for these kinds of business models.

So is Viva Aerobus going to be a signatory carrier or a non signatory carrier?

My first thought was that they'd be a non-signatory carrier. Since the gates are common-use, I didn't think Viva Aerobus could sign an actual lease for them. Aren't common-use gates/space to be used by any ULCC and/or shared by more than airline? If that's the case and they were Non Signatory, wouldn't the higher landing fees offset the lower terminal fees?

Then again, GECAS (not the City) is going to be the "landlord" to the airline(s) using the ULCC Terminal, and GECAS did (or will) sign a long term lease with the City for the land & apron space and is paying the construction costs for the terminal, so does that give GECAS signatory status that they can "pass on" to any airline using their ULCC Terminal? I don't quite understand how all that works.

One of the other fees listed was - Terminal Equipment Fee - $33,600 per gate, per annum. What does "terminal equipment" consist of? Loading Bridges? Furniture and/or light fixtures? Departure/arrival monitors? Other stuff?

I also saw where it said Conditioned Apron Space $13.74 per square foot, per annum and Unconditioned Apron Space $8.59 per square foot, per annum. Can someone explain what the difference is between the two?

And finally, ABIA's Nov. 5 press releasealso says Once approvals have been granted seats will be put on sale through its Web site

www.vivaaerobus.com

Viva Aerobus filed their application with DOT back in August.

Here is a link to the pdf file of their application.

http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.c...docketid=28919

I'm assuming DOT hasn't given approval, because it still says status pending and flights still aren't bookable on vivaaerobus' website. Any ideas on how much longer an approval might take?

BTW, it's really too bad that the tickets aren't bookable, yet. If you go to VivaAerobus' website, they're having a huge sale right now:

When we say ALL the tickets, we mean ALL the tickets

All the tickets at $1* Mxn plus taxes

VivaAerobus has ALL the tickets, ALL the destinations, ALL the departure times, ALL the flights, everyday costing only $1 plus taxes


Buy your tickets from January 11th through 16th and fly every day in Febraury, March, April, May and June. (From February 6th to June 30th. Except March 14th through March 31st and April 30th to May 6th.

* Final price may vary from $256 Mxn to $293 Mxn depending on the destination

At today's conversion rates, in US Dollars, that last sentence would read

* Final price may vary from $23.42 to $26.81 depending on the destination.

Looks like Central Texas is gonna miss out on this particular promotion, but maybe they'll have something similar if/when VivaAerobus launches AUS operations.


LoneStarMike

[M1EK]

And if you're wondering why the air traffic system is so overloaded, consider that they're charging by weight instead of by "time the runway is tied up". Of course, the rich guys with their own planes would scream bloody murder if they had to pay almost as much as the AA flight, but they logically SHOULD, since they're using the scarce resource for almost as long...

[Major AWACS]

Originally Posted by misterno

we do not want award winning airlines

we need cheap and reliable airlines

Who cares about awards for services if only the upper middle class and above can afford.

There is no such thing as a cheap airline. I have explained this to you already.
The prices you seem to want to pay are unrealistic. The industry cannot make a profit they way you seem to want it run.

Continental charges what the market will bear without going out of business or losing money for its shareholders.
Flying for the sake of flying is not a right, it is priviledge.

$50USD tickets to Mexico is not the norm and not realistic. The costs per seat mile are just to high. Flying is not, nor has it ever been "cheap".

You want cheap you can take the bus.

Ciao,
AWACS

[LoneStarMike]

Here's a rendering of the temporary terminal

[Major AWACS]

Continental fully funds its pensions thankfully.

Not all airlines will match prices on every seat on every route.
I am not sure what route you are trying to search or fly on but if it is out of Houston, Continental will fly it non-stop while US Air will most likely take you through Charlotte if it is east bound and through PHX or LAS west bound.

Sometimes airlines will match prices on connections, sometimes not.
American will normally match CO nearly ticket for ticket on the Florida Texas routes,even last minute walk ups others, not always
For me Continental is actually sometimes a bit more expensive but I will almost always pay more for a non-stop flight, and to fly Continental where I normally get upgraded to first class and have access to the airport lounge.

If a destination is heavily business, the higher first fare could be paid in full allowing a cheaper bucket on the backend for advance fare tickets. It all depends on the cost models and computer calculations the airlines use.

There are websites that show which seats are open in which buckets, you can check on.

Ciao,
AWACS

[Trae]

Yeah, Continental isn't as cheap as it was even two years ago, but neither is the whole airline industry. Two years ago, a IAH-LAX (Spring Break) flight costs us $160. This year, about $230.