Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Will SWA bail on San Jose?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

lowecur

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Posts
2,317
This could be the next fly in the ointment for another SWA city. SWA has not signed on to the new Master Development Plan. Current pax costs are set to almost double from $4.33 per pax to a promissed max of $8.50. The airport would like SWA to sign onto it's "IT Gate Share" solution to maximize efficiency of underused gates at off hours but SWA said they need to have proprietary use to maximize their business model. SWA would like to move out of their present location into the new expansion facility but don't look for the city to offer it to them without signing a long term lease that includes Master Development Plan and IT Gate Share. The airport mgt may keep gates at the current 32 in lieu of 40 as business is still 15% below pre 9/11 levels. SWA is still nervous that the projected pax cost of over $12.73. may raise it's ugly head, and if no Federal Grant money is received it will go to $17.

Interesting that D/FW costs are $6.40 per pax and D/FW has even offered to build SWA a proprietary terminal that is closer to runways to cut taxing time.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8371041/
 
Well, if SJC intends to waste alot of money on the new terminal, such as Art etc. I think we may not sign on. Funny how AA pulled alot of their flights out of SJC so that we are now the largest operator. Now the airport wants SWA to pay the for the whole thing, then AA will come back without having to pay their fare share.

J3
 
J3CubCapt said:
Well, if SJC intends to waste alot of money on the new terminal, such as Art etc. I think we may not sign on. Funny how AA pulled alot of their flights out of SJC so that we are now the largest operator. Now the airport wants SWA to pay the for the whole thing, then AA will come back without having to pay their fare share.

J3

Exactly.
 
J3CubCapt said:
Well, if SJC intends to waste alot of money on the new terminal, such as Art etc. I think we may not sign on. Funny how AA pulled alot of their flights out of SJC so that we are now the largest operator. Now the airport wants SWA to pay the for the whole thing, then AA will come back without having to pay their fare share.

J3

Now if SWA pulled that stunt, it would be a smart business move. Kudos for SWA, but since AA is pulling this game "HOW DARE THE EVIL EMPIRE DO THAT".

AA
 
J3CubCapt said:
Well, if SJC intends to waste alot of money on the new terminal, such as Art etc. I think we may not sign on. Funny how AA pulled alot of their flights out of SJC so that we are now the largest operator. Now the airport wants SWA to pay the for the whole thing, then AA will come back without having to pay their fare share.

J3
You could say the same about Nashville and RDU as AMR changed their business model and abandoned the mini-hub. Did these moves hurt those cities? Well obviously not as SWA and other carriers stepped in to p/u the slack. I think AMR continued to carry the mortgages on those bldgs until the airport authorities purchased them. Nashville and RDU because of their strong economies would do much better than San Jose after the internet bubble. If SWA decided to pull out of Mineta it would probably be a disaster for the area because of the grandious expansion.
 
AAflyer said:
Now if SWA pulled that stunt, it would be a smart business move. Kudos for SWA, but since AA is pulling this game "HOW DARE THE EVIL EMPIRE DO THAT".

AA

Different story. AA promised the world, at least the got Japan, to SJC then dumped the airport on them. SWA just keeps chugging along, giving what we need and needing what we give.
 
lowecur said:
This could be the next fly in the ointment for another SWA city. SWA has not signed on to the new Master Development Plan. Current pax costs are set to almost double from $4.33 per pax to a promissed max of $8.50. The airport would like SWA to sign onto it's "IT Gate Share" solution to maximize efficiency of underused gates at off hours but SWA said they need to have proprietary use to maximize their business model. SWA would like to move out of their present location into the new expansion facility but don't look for the city to offer it to them without signing a long term lease that includes Master Development Plan and IT Gate Share. The airport mgt may keep gates at the current 32 in lieu of 40 as business is still 15% below pre 9/11 levels. SWA is still nervous that the projected pax cost of over $12.73. may raise it's ugly head, and if no Federal Grant money is received it will go to $17.

Interesting that D/FW costs are $6.40 per pax and D/FW has even offered to build SWA a proprietary terminal that is closer to runways to cut taxing time.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8371041/

Good. Leave SJC. Where would SWA go to pick up the slack? Salinas??? Besides OAK and SFO there are no viable alternatives to SJC for most in the San Jose area.

San Jose is the 3rd largest city in California (yes bigger than San Francisco). If SWA were to ever leave (highly unlikely) then another carrier would quickly come in to fill the void.

GP
 
GuppyPuppy said:
Good. Leave SJC. Where would SWA go to pick up the slack? Salinas??? Besides OAK and SFO there are no viable alternatives to SJC for most in the San Jose area.

San Jose is the 3rd largest city in California (yes bigger than San Francisco). If SWA were to ever leave (highly unlikely) then another carrier would quickly come in to fill the void.

GP
Don't ever say never there GP. The airport is down 15% since 9/11, and if the pax cost jump to $12 (triple what they are now), you may see more than SWA bailing. Believe it or not, there are still some pax that go to OAK and SFO and drive the 27mi to San Jose.
 
lowecur said:
You could say the same about Nashville and RDU as AMR changed their business model and abandoned the mini-hub. Did these moves hurt those cities? Well obviously not as SWA and other carriers stepped in to p/u the slack. I think AMR continued to carry the mortgages on those bldgs until the airport authorities purchased them. Nashville and RDU because of their strong economies would do much better than San Jose after the internet bubble. If SWA decided to pull out of Mineta it would probably be a disaster for the area because of the grandious expansion.

Lowecur,

I personally lived through both RDU and BNA's decline. The difference in both cases is SWA came in a "Saved" those abandoned airports. SWA saw an opportunity to make a smart business move, as we do well.

J3
 
Interesting that D/FW costs are $6.40 per pax and D/FW has even offered to build SWA a proprietary terminal that is closer to runways to cut taxing time.

Source?

I'm calling you on this one. There is about to be so much empty space at DFW once the new Int'l terminal opens and the airport authority is whining about the lack of use. I doubt they can afford softer toilet paper.

The only thing I've read is money offered to move SWA into DFW. It won't be enough to cover the losses incurred by moving, and it didn't cover the whole operation.

If SJC raises the costs to a point that SWA can't be competitive, they will bail. SFO is not nearly the size operation it once was, and with new terminal space opened up and a wounded UAL, they could move back in until it gets crowded again.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top