 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Travel Types / Air Travel / December 2007MAXJet Bites the Dust!
According to my local Morning Blab, MaxJet has left'em stranded in every port, its fortunes diminished to naught, flights suspended, and all those big bidness class tickets sold but unredeemed and unredeemable(like the fortunes of the investors). TMO >According to my local Morning Blab, MaxJet has left'em stranded in every >port, its fortunes diminished to naught, flights suspended, and all those >big bidness class tickets sold but unredeemed and unredeemable(like the >fortunes of the investors). Yeas - too bad. Classic AA response to competition: Add flights to the same airport (in this case Stansted) and reinforce with bonus miles. Nothing wrong so far, but how quickly do you want to bet they drop those flights? >>According to my local Morning Blab, MaxJet has left'em stranded in every >>port, its fortunes diminished to naught, flights suspended, and all those [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Nothing wrong so far, but how quickly do you want to bet they drop those > flights? So, why not? Even though MaxJet was using a different airport, it was still competition for AA. Why shouldn't AA be able to fly to the same airport to compete with them? If MaxJet were to make money, it would be at the expense of AA/BA/VS and other carriers. Should the other carriers just ignore this? >So, why not? Even though MaxJet was using a different airport, it was >still competition for AA. Why shouldn't AA be able to fly to the same >airport to compete with them? If MaxJet were to make money, it would be >at the expense of AA/BA/VS and other carriers. Should the other carriers >just ignore this? Maxjet found a need and serviced it by going to Stansted. AA could have chose to service that need but decided not to until Maxjet did. So far no problem. But just like Legend at Dallas, as soon as AA put Maxjet out of business, I'll bet they leave the market. That's predatory and not serving the public interest. >>So, why not? Even though MaxJet was using a different airport, it was >>still competition for AA. Why shouldn't AA be able to fly to the same [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maxjet found a need and serviced it by going to Stansted. AA could have chose to > service that need but decided not to until Maxjet did. So far no problem. Were these passengers that would have been on AA/BA/VS into or out of LHR/LGW, had there not been MaxJet? >>>So, why not? Even though MaxJet was using a different airport, it was >>>still competition for AA. Why shouldn't AA be able to fly to the same [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Were these passengers that would have been on AA/BA/VS into or out of > LHR/LGW, had there not been MaxJet? While I accept Ricks' point I'm not convinced it's appropriate here. I reckon AA have recognised that there is a market at Stansted - they have operated there previously. It's a general market - Maxjet were a niche which may have affected part of the AA operation but not most of it. And, even with Maxjet gone, Eos and Silverjet (from Luton) are still around so if AA want to put people out of business they still have some targets left. But there's a further point here. How many flights have AA put into Stansted? Two. How many flights have AA moved (will move) from Gatwick to Heathrow? Two (One Dallas and the Raleigh/Durham). Quite why they then moved the New Yorks to Stansted rather than Gatwick I'm not totally sure but I suspect it has to do with the DL flights from Gatwick. I'm not suggesting that the slot issue is the determinant - like so many things there are no doubt many issues we are not aware of. >>>>So, why not? Even though MaxJet was using a different airport, it was >>>>still competition for AA. Why shouldn't AA be able to fly to the same [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > reckon AA have recognised that there is a market at Stansted - they have > operated there previously. And they pulled out because no-one, well not enough people, wanted to go to STN for a US flight. tim >>>>>So, why not? Even though MaxJet was using a different airport, it was >>>>>still competition for AA. Why shouldn't AA be able to fly to the same [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > tim I can't remember when that happened but I would suggest that things have moved on. Apart from the slot issue Stansted has developed - it now has its' own catchment. I could have seen AA going back in with one flight but they're going double daily (aren't they? and I can't see them doing that on spec. Apart from Ford in Brentwood what other companies are there that regularly fly to the US for whom Stansted could be a valid alternative to LHR/LGW? That's the sort of thing that I would expect to tempt them back. "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote .... > And they pulled out because no-one, well not enough people, wanted to go > to STN for a US flight. That's a poor and only partial analysis.... The rumor here was that Maxjet seems to have been looking for passengers who wanted to travel in a "business class" environment (and with prices close to those offered by better known carriers from other airports). Given that a substantial number of the folks in "Business Class" seats on flights from US/UK and UK/US flights have not paid for "Business Class" tickets but are there as FF upgrades, it's seems quite likely from a "capacity control" standpoint that whether the flight serves LHR or STN, there are simply not enough folks around willing to actually pay to fill the seats Maxjet was selling. For several decades, unwary investors and confident conmen (some who believed their own spiel) have tried to establish airlines which served "premium" passengers. The fates of the efforts have been markedly similar. TMO > "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote .... > >> And they pulled out because no-one, well not enough people, wanted to go >> to STN for a US flight. >> > That's a poor and only partial analysis.... Not at all. I was not analysing the situation re Maxjet, merely stating why AA pulled out in 1990 something. > The rumor here was that Maxjet seems to have been looking for passengers > who wanted to travel in a "business class" environment (and with prices [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > there are simply not enough folks around willing to actually pay to fill > the seats Maxjet was selling. Maxjet weren't selling 'business' class seats. Whatever they called them, they were priced at premium economy fares. There obviously weren't enough customers, but I doubt that is because of FF upgrades. > For several decades, unwary investors and confident conmen (some who > believed their own spiel) have tried to establish airlines which served > "premium" passengers. The fates of the efforts have been markedly > similar. I'm sure that the investors went in with their eyes open. Lots of new ventures don't work, the norm is 2 in 3, or is it 3 in 4? tim >Maxjet weren't selling 'business' class seats. Whatever they called them, >they were priced at premium economy fares. There obviously weren't enough >customers, but I doubt that is because of FF upgrades. A friend of mine who was very happy flying silverjet on NYC-LON route thought maxjet extremely useless, had got it completely wrong, neither the fares nor the service made any sense. >> For several decades, unwary investors and confident conmen (some who >> believed their own spiel) have tried to establish airlines which served [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I'm sure that the investors went in with their eyes open. Lots of new >ventures don't work, the norm is 2 in 3, or is it 3 in 4? Oh I'm sure it was worth a shot, the number of competitors trying it is pretty high, that one has failed, doesn't mean the idea was wrong, just their execution. Jim. >>Maxjet weren't selling 'business' class seats. Whatever they called them, >>they were priced at premium economy fares. There obviously weren't enough [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thought maxjet extremely useless, had got it completely wrong, neither > the fares nor the service made any sense. Not having actually looked too hard, what specifically were the problems? >>> For several decades, unwary investors and confident conmen (some who >>> believed their own spiel) have tried to establish airlines which served [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is pretty high, that one has failed, doesn't mean the idea was wrong, > just their execution. As I said earlier, there are now too many trying to fill this space. Some are bound to fail tim > Jim. > A friend of mine who was very happy flying silverjet on NYC-LON route > thought maxjet extremely useless, had got it completely wrong, neither > the fares nor the service made any sense. In what manner?  SignatureCraig http://www.wazu.jp/ 1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups: Price your own web plan: http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/ > According to my local Morning Blab, MaxJet has left'em stranded in every > port, Other places report that they have found alternative carriers for all stranded pax. > its fortunes diminished to naught, flights suspended, and all those big > bidness class tickets sold but unredeemed and unredeemable(like the > fortunes of the investors). The investors declined to put more money in. ISTM that there is no room for more than one business only carrier on this route (and possibly not even that). So far from first leader advantage (I think Maxjet were first, BICBW) it looks like it's going to be last man standing. tim |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.