Arizona is the most popular destination for Californians who have left the Golden State. It is also a big connecting point for WN at its PHX non-hub, and US at the PHX hub. As far as the rest of the list, it is made up of the most frequently served non-stop destinations. I am surprised LAS is so high on the list, it only takes three hours to drive there. Sacramento is a natural because of all of the state and county employees traveling there.

Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5406590/

Topic: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: beardown91737
Posted 2012-03-07 00:54:08 and read 4946 times.

The City of Ontario has been trying since late 2010 to regain control of ONT from the Los Angeles World Airports agency, which is part of the City of LA.

LAWA and Los Angeles City Hall have held firm that they will not turn over control ONT to Ontario or any other agency formed to provide local control in the Inland Empire. Ontario made an offer to pay $50M to take over control, which was turned down by LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as a "fire sale" price, at which time he also declared that there would be a waiting period of 2 years before ONT could be sold. No reason given by the media as to the significance of the 2 year period. Later, Ontario officials declared the total value of the offer at $250 million. http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_19915208


During the past year, there have been several moves. The California State Senate passed SB 446 which authorized formation of a regional authority to operate ONT. The bill passed with only one dissenting vote, which came from an area near BUR. There was no opposition from senators in the immediate area of LAX.

SB 446 text: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...bill_20110407_amended_sen_v98.html

The legislative analysis contains history, and also offers some reasons for ONT's struggles like we have seen on a.net, like double digit unemployment in the immediate area which is higher than California's statewide double digit unemployment rate. (my personal input is that the double digit unemployment in Los Angeles is somewhere between the ONT area and California's rate).
SB 446 analysis:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/..._cfa_20110428_140321_sen_comm.html

However SB446 was tabled to allow negotiation between Ontario and LAWA to continue.

Over 30 city councils have passed resolutions supporting local control of ONT, most from the ONT service area, but also from Inglewood, which is adjacent to LAX, and Laguna Niguel, in southern Orange County. Several of the cities are in the San Gabriel Valley, which is in between ONT, BUR, and LAX.

After an LA Times story purported ONT to be nearly abandoned (strange for being busier than LGB, BUR, RNO, TUS, and many smaller facilities), polls indicated that most LA residents didn't know they owned an extra airport, and were willing to sell it. In the aftermath of this story, two LA city council members called for a study of the valuation of ONT and how it could be returned to local control.

Local control officials have set up their PR campaign online, at setontariofree.com, and also on Facebook and Twitter. LAWA has responded with a page on its own site.

In the last few weeks, LAWA has warmed up quite a bit, offering a brand new marketing plan in a couple of months. It obviously will exceed the previous marketing plan here LAWA went to the Long Beach Travel Show to promote ONT as "LA's second airport". Considering that Long Beach has its own airport, and that LAX is reasonably nearby, promoting a distant facility 50+ miles away was not a winning proposition when there are four closer airports.

So this week, the call from Ontario has been to stop stalling and get some serious talks going. The momentum is there, the passengers are there, and obviously a local agency would have ONT as its top priority.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: bjorn14
Posted 2012-03-07 05:46:58 and read 4743 times.

Never understood why LAWA wanted ONT and PMD in the first place. Local control is usually the best solution unless they're backwoods rubes.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: 747srule
Posted 2012-03-07 09:43:32 and read 4543 times.

ONT was modernized in the late 90's or early 2000's to bring more traffic to the Inland Empire. This was done to relieve congestion at LAX. However prices at ONT are exorbitant compared to LAX. People would rather go to LAX for cheaper fares. Also,last I heard, ONT has only one intl flight,and that is to Mexico.On top of that, most of ONT's flight are to connect in other airports. You can not even fly to ORD last I knew. ONT really needs to step up before they can claim to be a viable airport. I live about three miles away and all I see is Southwest.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: apodino
Posted 2012-03-07 09:48:04 and read 4524 times.

Quoting 747srule (Reply 2):
ONT was modernized in the late 90's or early 2000's to bring more traffic to the Inland Empire. This was done to relieve congestion at LAX. However prices at ONT are exorbitant compared to LAX. People would rather go to LAX for cheaper fares. Also,last I heard, ONT has only one intl flight,and that is to Mexico.On top of that, most of ONT's flight are to connect in other airports. You can not even fly to ORD last I knew. ONT really needs to step up before they can claim to be a viable airport. I live about three miles away and all I see is Southwest.

Part of the problem with what you said is the fact that landing fees and operating costs at ONT are much higher for carriers than LAX. This is why the local governments have been trying to wrest control of ONT away from LAWA. Why LAWA won't budge is beyond me, other than fear of losing pax to ONT if the local people get it and lower costs to airlines, which will encourage airline growth at ONT and revitalize the local economy, which has tanked partially due to the ONT problems.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: LAXdude1023
Posted 2012-03-07 09:55:09 and read 4505 times.

I see the politics in LA havent died down since I left.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: mercure1
Posted 2012-03-07 10:05:26 and read 4487 times.

Funny story.

People should realize how Los Angeles got control of Ontario airport to begin with.

Its too convenient for the peoples of Ontario to not remember they defaulted and literally walked away from the airport by failing to fund the airport leaving the airport in a weird legal limbo in the hands of the FAA. The FAA then contacted the City of Los Angeles to see if it could take over the management of the facility, and the City of Ontario and Los Angeles reached a joint powers agreement for airport operation in 1967. Then in 1985, Ontario relinquished all control of the airport when City of Los Angeles purchased the facilities entirely.

Also it seems the Ontario folks like to ignore the many hundreds of millions LA has invested in the airport with their paltry financial offers. Why should LA not be properly compensated for its 45-years of investment now?

Lastly, it seems to me the elected people in Ontario live in a glass house, and fail to look around and realize their airports conditions are not unique - the entire US secondary airport have seen traffic declines are airline service has shifted, and all LA airports such as Burbank, and Orange County also have seen traffic declines. Plus off course the terrible economic condition that portion of California has experienced. From US Census bureau the Inland Empire has one of the highest poverty rate in California (32.4% residents) - certainly these people not traveling or create business demand for airlines.   

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: N1120A
Posted 2012-03-07 10:14:21 and read 4447 times.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 1):

Never understood why LAWA wanted ONT and PMD in the first place. Local control is usually the best solution unless they're backwoods rubes.

PMD has never been ideal, because the military wants to maintain control. The growth out that way has made it an attractive potential option, but military restrictions and the local economy have always held it down.

As for ONT, there are lots of reasons. Its the perfect alternative airport to LAX. It can serve a distinct population base in Eastern L.A. County, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties as well as parts of San Diego and Orange Counties. ONT has 2 long runways and is almost never encumbered by weather. It also sits on a rather large piece of land which can support a lot of growth. The access is also excellent from local freeways and its near enough rail lines that public transport can eventually be sent out there.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 5):

Great points.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: mercure1
Posted 2012-03-07 10:16:34 and read 4441 times.

Quoting apodino (Reply 3):
Part of the problem with what you said is the fact that landing fees and operating costs at ONT are much higher for carriers than LAX.

No landing fee not higher at ONT. LAX is still much more expensive.

From 2012 fee schedule as adopted in June 2011.

Landing fee (per 1,000lbs)

LAX
Pax aircraft: $4.36
Cargo aircraft $3.57

ONT
Pax aircraft: $2.32
Cargo aircraft $2.32

Parking (per 1,000lbs)
LAX - $0.40
ONT - $0.40


Also from other document I have

“From 2007-2011, the following reductions were made at ONT:
 Reduced operating expenditures 23%
 Reduced contractual services18%
 Reduced utilities 16%
 Reduced personnel 36% (full-time employees from 430 to 274)
 Consolidated shuttle bus and parking operations
The Cost Per Enplaned passenger (CPE) at ONT was $11.76 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, down from a high of $13.50 in 2010. We expect FY2012 to be lower. “

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: point2point
Posted 2012-03-07 10:55:39 and read 4350 times.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 7):
No landing fee not higher at ONT. LAX is still much more expensive.

From 2012 fee schedule as adopted in June 2011.

Although these figures are important, what could be more important is the CPE (Cost per Enplaned Passenger) between the two airports. This is the number that, simply stated, is charged to the airlines after the airport figures out its total operational costs, and then subtracts all other (non-airline) income that it receives (concession rentals, parking, etc.), and then divides this remaining amount that is charged to the airlines operating there by the number of enplaned passengers (or departing passengers)

Year ending 6/30/11, the CPE for ONT is $12.28, and for LAX it is $11.33. And the ONT cost is rather high in terms of U.S. average, and also is rather high for an airport its size. Now, the $11.33 for LAX will be rising a lot and soon, considering all of the financing that's happening as a result of construction there. And ONT, I believe, is pretty well set in terms of its future constructions.

Keeping costs down, and increasing pax at ONT needs to be the goal of those owning/managing ONT. If somehow ONT could get its pax count up to the levels it had in the years of 2004-2006, and it's enplanements were around 3.5M (instead of the current 2.4M) and all other things stay equal, then doing some simple math, the estimated CPE with the 3.5M would be around $8.25, and that would obviously be better as far as ONT would be concerned.

 

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: beardown91737
Posted 2012-03-07 11:57:20 and read 4265 times.

Quoting 747srule (Reply 2):
You can not even fly to ORD last I knew.

For most of the 1990s, UA and AA combined for 8 daily non-stops to ORD, and for a few years, there was 1x WN to MDW. The WN flight was dropped but returned in 2010. However WN does not offer the same connections beyond Chicago that UA or AA would offer. Lack of ORD service is bigger than anyone realizes, though ONT's passenger traffic peaked severakl years after ORD was dropped by everyone.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 4):

I see the politics in LA havent died down since I left.

Definitely not, and this is an issue on which nearly the entire state senate agreed upon.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 5):
Its too convenient for the peoples of Ontario to not remember they defaulted and literally walked away from the airport by failing to fund the airport leaving the airport in a weird legal limbo in the hands of the FAA. The FAA then contacted the City of Los Angeles to see if it could take over the management of the facility, and the City of Ontario and Los Angeles reached a joint powers agreement for airport operation in 1967. Then in 1985, Ontario relinquished all control of the airport when City of Los Angeles purchased the facilities entirely.

Who is "they"? The 1970 census for Ontario was 64,000. In 2010 it was 164,000. Not necessarily the same people in Ontario now, I am not going to look up how old the current city council members are, but the oldest were probably barely of voting age in 1967.

LA had its reasons to want to take control of ONT in 1967. Part of this was for a good :LAX alternate that could not be provided by BUR. Question is why they feel the need to hold on to it now, when most constituents don't want an extra airport, and they know that Ontario is committed to operating it as an airport.

In 1985, the payment was something like $60,000 to settle the 1967 JPA. There had been previous investments prior to that by LAWA. How much of those did not come from ONT income?

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 5):
Also it seems the Ontario folks like to ignore the many hundreds of millions LA has invested in the airport with their paltry financial offers. Why should LA not be properly compensated for its 45-years of investment now?

The LAWA number is $533M. According to Ontario, they are offering $250M. LAWA was collecting landing fees, gate and parking fees, and PFCs, not raiding piggybanks of LA taxpayers. If they were, then the LA residents are right, and LAWA should dump ONT.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 5):
Lastly, it seems to me the elected people in Ontario live in a glass house, and fail to look around and realize their airports conditions are not unique - the entire US secondary airport have seen traffic declines are airline service has shifted, and all LA airports such as Burbank, and Orange County also have seen traffic declines.

Not similar. Traffic declines since 2005:
1. CVG -69%
2. ONT -37%
3. OAK -36%
4. PVD -32%
5. RNO -27%
9. BUR -22%
11. PIT -20%
19. SNA -10%

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 5):
Plus off course the terrible economic condition that portion of California has experienced. From US Census bureau the Inland Empire has one of the highest poverty rate in California (32.4% residents) - certainly these people not traveling or create business demand for airlines.   

So what? That leaves over 2 million local residents who can travel.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 6):
PMD has never been ideal, because the military wants to maintain control. The growth out that way has made it an attractive potential option, but military restrictions and the local economy have always held it down.

Many years ago there were discussions of making PMD the International airport, linked to LA and LAX by high speed rail. However, air travel should not start with a long traing trip.

BTW PMD and VNY also want out of LAWA.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 7):
No landing fee not higher at ONT. LAX is still much more expensive.

That is all in the last year. When the meltdown started, landing fees were higher.

Also, the staff reduction is just linear to the traffic decline, so reasonable at best. The problem with ONT staffing is they are paid LA rates even though we have a slightly lower cost of living here. Any savings through things consolidation of IT are negated by the high bureaucratic cost of LA departments, with a 15% admin fee added on top of that. LAWA provides police for ONT, while Ontario could contract with San Bernardino Sheriff for much less. It goes on and on and on.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: N1120A
Posted 2012-03-07 12:18:25 and read 4183 times.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
BTW PMD and VNY also want out of LAWA.

PMD is military, so it will always be weird.

VNY isn't going anywhere. LAWA control keeps GA at LAX to a minimum.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
LAWA provides police for ONT, while Ontario could contract with San Bernardino Sheriff for much less

I don't see how they could. LAWA grew their police department because of the expense of using local agencies.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-03-07 12:27:29 and read 4151 times.

The one question I do have is: What county does ONT sit in? I'm gonna bet it is not LA County.....

So then with that in mind, why does LAWA need to control ONT for? ONT should be on their own and compete with LAX. I don't understand why ONT is so valuable to LAWA if not very many airlines are operating at ONT (becasue of high cost...), it makes no sense to me.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: mercure1
Posted 2012-03-07 12:45:45 and read 4101 times.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
Who is "they"?

The legal entity known as the City of Ontario.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
So what? That leaves over 2 million local residents who can travel.

Look around California. The economic picture of Inland Empire is sad. It does not drive the business or leisure demand of the past.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
Not similar. Traffic declines since 2005:

As you see - ONT is not much different that OAK for example. Like in Bay Area, people don't care to access OAK, as SFO has seen a renaissance of demand.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
BTW PMD and VNY also want out of LAWA.

PMD has nothing to do with LAWA now. LAWA only ran the passenger facility, not the entire airport.

VNY which is physically located in the City of Los Angeles merely wants a local steering committee to provide input on local issue. No illusions to separate.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
That is all in the last year. When the meltdown started, landing fees were higher.

Give me a year, and I will look it up. In my experience over last 10-years the fee structure at ONT always trailed LAX.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
Also, the staff reduction is just linear to the traffic decline, so reasonable at best. The problem with ONT staffing is they are paid LA rates even though we have a slightly lower cost of living here. Any savings through things consolidation of IT are negated by the high bureaucratic cost of LA departments, with a 15% admin fee added on top of that. LAWA provides police for ONT, while Ontario could contract with San Bernardino Sheriff for much less. It goes on and on and on.

It goes on and on, for those that ignore the facts.

Looking at simply employment counts, is not a very valid thing, as LAWA is a A to Z agency that is self sufficient. Contracting out reduces the body count off the books, but in reality the bodies are still there and paid for still. Airports like SNA and LGB look more 'efficient' having less employees as they contract out much to their respective county or city for example. Also don't forget being part of the LAWA shares with ONT with a host of back-end support which if self managed it would have to bear the full cost for.


At the end of the day the downturn at ONT is not because of LAWA, but much more based on macro-economics.
Both the economic picture of the US/California has changed, and that of airlines and routes they can economically service.


Anyhow - in the long run for those that cry about cost, ONT fees will either decline or be stable under LAWA. This is while LAX fees will rise signficantly with all the development work, while SNA and LGB also see their fees rise as debt servicing cost of new terminals and parking structures accrue. Only remaining relative 'cheap' SoCal airport will be BUR.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: AS739BSI
Posted 2012-03-07 12:51:51 and read 4079 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
So then with that in mind, why does LAWA need to control ONT for?

My thinking would be to receive more money from directing more passengers to fly out of LAX in order to collect the $$ needed for the TBIT rebuild.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: LOWS
Posted 2012-03-07 12:52:55 and read 4074 times.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
Many years ago there were discussions of making PMD the International airport, linked to LA and LAX by high speed rail. However, air travel should not start with a long traing trip.

And yet, for those of us in Europe who so often begin our journeys with "long" train trips, we seem to do all right. Better than sitting in a car, alone, for an hour in heavy traffic. Then having to find a parking place. Less stress you see. Makes the whole journey much more pleasant.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: threeifbyair
Posted 2012-03-07 13:12:19 and read 4032 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
The one question I do have is: What county does ONT sit in? I'm gonna bet it is not LA County.....

ONT and the city of Ontario are in San Bernadino County. LAWA is an arm of the City of Los Angeles, though, not the county.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
So then with that in mind, why does LAWA need to control ONT for? ONT should be on their own and compete with LAX. I don't understand why ONT is so valuable to LAWA if not very many airlines are operating at ONT (becasue of high cost...), it makes no sense to me

LAWA probably doesn't have a great business case for owning ONT either. If I was a citizen of Los Angeles, I'd wonder why my city owned another city's airport. Ontario citizens are obviously wondering the opposite thing.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: mercure1
Posted 2012-03-07 13:24:23 and read 3999 times.

I forgot to mention -

Looking at ONT based strictly on passenger counts does not present the whole image.

ONT is the Western US sorting hub for UPS, and as a result is one of the top Western US cargo through put airports.

So ONT is simply not a smaller passenger airport such as BUR/LGB/SNA for example, but has entire other business side to it which also cost money to manage and run.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-03-07 13:27:40 and read 3994 times.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 12):
In my experience over last 10-years the fee structure at ONT always trailed LAX.

If that was the case, then F9 would still be flying to ONT...... and probably a few other airlines and ONT would be much better today.... ONT would be as popular as LAX is and would be driving in revenue.

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 15):
ONT and the city of Ontario are in San Bernadino County.

That is what I thought.

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 15):
LAWA is an arm of the City of Los Angeles, though, not the county.

I thought it was the county in charge, not the city. I had no idea about that.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: mercure1
Posted 2012-03-07 13:33:22 and read 3972 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 17):
If that was the case, then F9 would still be flying to ONT...... and probably a few other airlines and ONT would be much better today.... ONT would be as popular as LAX is and would be driving in revenue.

Airline fly where people want to fly to.
Why do you think airlines fight for rate slots to operate at places like worlds most expensive Heathrow and Narita?

Over the years many airlines have tried service to secondary airports in LA basin including ONT. For example Air Canada tried both ONT and SNA, but stuck to its LAX service at the end.

If you want example of Frontier what happened with its service to Long Beach ?? It lasted what barely 12-months?

Like with all business its, location, location, location.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-03-07 13:49:18 and read 3941 times.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 18):
Airline fly where people want to fly to.

When it comes to ONT, not really. F9 pulled out of ONT because of the high costs of flying there, same with a few other airlines.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 18):
If you want example of Frontier what happened with its service to Long Beach ?? It lasted what barely 12-months?

Blame Republic for that one, not F9. F9 pulled out of SJC because of high costs to fly there.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 18):
For example Air Canada tried both ONT and SNA, but stuck to its LAX service at the end.

Because LAX was cheaper.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: mariner
Posted 2012-03-07 14:28:38 and read 3887 times.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 18):
If you want example of Frontier what happened with its service to Long Beach ?? It lasted what barely 12-months?

There's a bitty more to it than favored airport.

DEN to the LA Basin is one of the most saturated markets in the country - Delta pulled it's planned DEN-LAX flights before they even started.

http://airlineroute.net/2012/01/04/dl-laxden-jun12cxld/

"DELTA Cancels Los Angeles-Denver Launch due June 2012"

Frontier found that DEN-LGB was not increasing the pool but was cannibalizing its own DEN-LAX.

Frontier's DEN-ONT (with Mesa RJ's) was a whole other story, involving United and the Ted A320's - and $90 round trips.  

mariner

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: mercure1
Posted 2012-03-07 15:04:48 and read 3826 times.

And the point is airlines fly to where people are willing to go. Airport cost, is not the end story.

If people want to fly to ONT, airlines will serve it the same manner they do airports all over the world. Airports like NRT, LHR, etc are well known being some of the most expensive to operate at, yet airlines often fight hard to get a vacant slot.

Above it was mentioned about OAK traffic being down. OAK is one of the cheapest facilities in the US, but yet airlines prefer to go across bay to SFO. Why - because people want SFO...
Down in LA, carries that focus on cost like JetBlue, Allegiant and Spirit have forgone other cheaper LA Basin airports to grow at LAX.

Its only when airlines cannot drive the traffic and revenue that things like airport cost become convenient excuses. ONT has lots more problems than a headline fee structure.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-03-07 15:09:14 and read 3819 times.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 21):
Airport cost, is not the end story.

Uh, yes it is. If it wasn't, then we would be seeing ONT blooming with business at no end and F9 would be flying to ONT 5x daily.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 21):
OAK is one of the cheapest facilities in the US, but yet airlines prefer to go across bay to SFO. Why - because people want SFO...

OAK may be one of the cheapest, yes. People don't go to SFO because it is SFO. People go to SFO because that is the only airport in the Bay Area that offers more than OAK does, and it isn't a choice. OAK does not have flights to LHR or NRT or AKL when SFO does. They have to go to SFO for that.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 21):
ONT has lots more problems than a headline fee structure.

Such as........???

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: mercure1
Posted 2012-03-07 16:30:18 and read 3694 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
Uh, yes it is. If it wasn't, then we would be seeing ONT blooming with business at no end and F9 would be flying to ONT 5x daily.

If it was cost driven, you would have airlines flying to BUR - its about 75% cheaper at mere $3-4 per pax total.

You'd have 5x daily there, but you don't, as its not fee driven.

Airlines again fly to where people want to go... and its not BUR, or ONT based on this discussion.

Secondary airports will work if you want to discount your flight enough to change the consumer habit, but otherwise for the same money people go where they will.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
OAK may be one of the cheapest, yes. People don't go to SFO because it is SFO. People go to SFO because that is the only airport in the Bay Area that offers more than OAK does, and it isn't a choice. OAK does not have flights to LHR or NRT or AKL when SFO does. They have to go to SFO for that.

OK, then same can be said for LAX.

LAX is Los Angeles for the world, and even most residents. Places like BUR, SNA, LGB and ONT are community airports. If people find option at those, great, however bulk of demand is to LAX. When people think of LA it means LAX for most, as SFO does for Bay Area.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
Such as........???

Even overseas I see the terrible economic news about California Inland Empire.

Now 2nd poorest city in America per Census
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...ews/local/inland_empire&id=8436598
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ically-hard-hit-inland-empire.html

# 4 top spot in America for foreclosures
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...ltyTrac-Real-Estate-133632113.html

Highest regional unemployement rate since California State started keeping records
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...ews/local/inland_empire&id=7324176

Massive economic downturn.- lost 10-years of growth
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_18955336

All put together provide shortfall in tax revenues putting more pressure on local services, and causing even more government layoffs and further economic malaise.

So people don't have money, and business is not active like it used to which means reduce commerce demand.

Under such conditions certainly neither leisure or business air-travel will flourish at airport such problem area as ONT.

.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: N1120A
Posted 2012-03-07 20:36:38 and read 3518 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):

The one question I do have is: What county does ONT sit in? I'm gonna bet it is not LA County.....

San Bernardino. That isn't what matters.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
So then with that in mind, why does LAWA need to control ONT for?

Because they bought it. A long time ago.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
ONT should be on their own and compete with LAX.

I would venture to say that ONT would get toasted if they were on their own. Then probably revert to LAWA control.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
I don't understand why ONT is so valuable to LAWA if not very many airlines are operating at ONT (becasue of high cost...), it makes no sense to me.

Its not because of high cost. Its about the fact that ONT is the least convenient airport in the region to those with economic power.

Quoting LOWS (Reply 14):
And yet, for those of us in Europe who so often begin our journeys with "long" train trips, we seem to do all right.

The difference is that we don't have nearly as well developed a public transportation system, and LAX is already a massive airport that is 5 million passengers down from 2000 and can still expand.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 16):

Great points.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 17):
If that was the case, then F9 would still be flying to ONT...... and probably a few other airlines and ONT would be much better today.... ONT would be as popular as LAX is and would be driving in revenue.

   You are kidding, right? Look at the population density around ONT. Look at the economic differences. Its not even close. F9 doesn't fly to ONT because they can't generate high yielding traffic there.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 17):
I thought it was the county in charge, not the city. I had no idea about that.

You don't seem to understand much of the dynamics here.

Anyway, the City of Los Angeles owns LAWA. Before it was named LAWA, it was called the City of Los Angeles Department of Airports.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 19):
F9 pulled out of ONT because of the high costs of flying there, same with a few other airlines.

"A few other airlines?" ONT doesn't have as many airlines as it used to because of consolidation - pure and simple. It has always been a regional relief airport. F9 didn't pull out because of high costs, because the costs just aren't that high.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 19):
Because LAX was cheaper.

No. LAX is where the traffic is. BUR and SNA are the relievers where the money is.

Quoting mariner (Reply 20):
Frontier's DEN-ONT (with Mesa RJ's) was a whole other story, involving United and the Ted A320's - and $90 round trips.

Exactly. RJs are already a high cost option, and United drew a line in the sand with that.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
Uh, yes it is. If it wasn't, then we would be seeing ONT blooming with business at no end and F9 would be flying to ONT 5x daily.

Come on. ONT just doesn't have the population or the economic might to compete.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 23):
Airlines again fly to where people want to go... and its not BUR, or ONT based on this discussion.

Well, BUR is a different animal. Its constrained some by the runways and a whole lot by the NIMBYs. BUR would likely have higher traffic than ONT if it were in the same location but had ONT's facilities.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: point2point
Posted 2012-03-07 20:48:04 and read 3563 times.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 23):
If it was cost driven, you would have airlines flying to BUR - its about 75% cheaper at mere $3-4 per pax total.
Quoting mercure1 (Reply 23):
Places like BUR, SNA, LGB and LAX.

In a way, this is sort of an off (for lack of a better word here) comparison with these airports. It seems that the situation is different in a way here, because I do believe that although LAX is not slot restricted, it has gate issues (am I correct here?) and then I do believe that all of BUR, LGA, and SNA are slot restricted airports, and in a sense, will only accept the traffic that they want to accept. So I would suppose in a sense that LGA is stable, and even though both BUR and SNA have lost some numbers over the last few years... do they have unused slots at these..... or have they reduced slots at these airports?

So then, am I correct here in my thinking that the SBD about 12(?) or so mile down the road, and looking for its own service, and not being able to get it for the last 8(?) years or so, maybe an indication that passengers - for whatever reason - do not prefer to really board/unboard a scheduled commercial flight in that vicinity?

Here's to the folks at ONT, and all the best to all.....

  



[Edited 2012-03-07 21:23:36]

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-03-07 21:19:09 and read 3530 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 24):
Its about the fact that ONT is the least convenient airport in the region to those with economic power.

Then why bother keeping ONT functional and operational??

Quoting N1120A (Reply 24):
ONT just doesn't have the population or the economic might to compete.

It sure doesn't stop WN from flying into ONT, as well as AS.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: laca773
Posted 2012-03-07 22:52:11 and read 3464 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 26):

It sure doesn't stop WN from flying into ONT, as well as AS.

True. Recently, WN has made multiple reductions in the markets they serve from ONT. AS has axed two SEA-ONT-SEA flights and PDX-ONT-PDX has been downgauged to CR7s operated by SkyWest which were previously all mainline.

DL used to have more mainline on ONT-SLC, now I believe it's once a day, on busier days, with the rest being 3X CRJ, 1X CR9, ATL used to be 2-3X daily depending on the day with 757/763s and now is 1X redeye with either a 73H/757.

B6 started their first transcon to ONT. That's been gone for several years.

AM axed SJD and GDL. GDL came back seasonally, and believe it's back to being year round. I hope they make it.

If anything it would be nice to see the new combined UA/CO add new service ORD-ONT-ORD with either a 73G or A319. I think they have a better chance of getting to work over AA at this point.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: N1120A
Posted 2012-03-07 23:10:04 and read 3433 times.

Quoting point2point (Reply 25):
because I do believe that although LAX is not slot restricted, it has gate issues (am I correct here?)

LAX has an agreed upon plan to limit capacity by reducing gates used when the airport crosses a certain threshold of passengers. That number is about 10-15 million more than the airport now handles.

Quoting point2point (Reply 25):
and then I do believe that all of BUR, LGA, and SNA are slot restricted airports

BUR is not slot restricted - it is small. Unless and until the NIMBY's allow them to build a new terminal, they can't do much.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 26):
Then why bother keeping ONT functional and operational??

Because it does serve a certain market and is the only airport in the area with the infrastructure to cope with the need to divert heavily from LAX.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 26):
It sure doesn't stop WN from flying into ONT, as well as AS.

WN serves a very different market and AS has cut and serves a finite market. WN basically maintains the same markets from ONT as from SNA and from BUR (except no MDW from BUR). Certain P2P markets and that's it. Nothing like LAX.

Quoting laca773 (Reply 27):
If anything it would be nice to see the new combined UA/CO add new service ORD-ONT-ORD with either a 73G or A319. I think they have a better chance of getting to work over AA at this point.

Totally agree, and I think it would work. But they have other fish to fry right now (like making sure my PQM balance is corrected).

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: mercure1
Posted 2012-03-07 23:43:48 and read 3420 times.

Quoting point2point (Reply 25):
because I do believe that although LAX is not slot restricted, it has gate issues (am I correct here?)

No slots at LAX, for gates, well terminals are mostly under long term lease to tenant airlines, but that has not been an issue for carriers like JetBlue, Spirit, Sun Country etc to enter and grow at LAX.

In reality LAWA has strong interest in seeing traffic utilize other airports like ONT, as they are under court order to limit growth at LAX.

Quoting point2point (Reply 25):
and then I do believe that all of BUR, LGA, and SNA are slot restricted airports, and in a sense, will only accept the traffic that they want to accep

Yes slots at LGB and SNA. No slots at BUR, and plenty of vacant ticket counter space.

Quoting point2point (Reply 25):
So then, am I correct here in my thinking that the SBD about 12(?) or so mile down the road, and looking for its own service, and not being able to get it for the last 8(?) years or so, maybe an indication that passengers - for whatever reason - do not prefer to really board/unboard a scheduled commercial flight in that vicinity?

Indeed SBD has been trying hard for service. They virtually were giving the place for free to Allegiant, who instead opted for the big kahuna LAX. (Allegiant even pulled service at LGB in favor of LAX)

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 26):
Then why bother keeping ONT functional and operational??

Its a community airport that serves as reliever in the greater LA basin, while also serving as a important cargo airport.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 26):
It sure doesn't stop WN from flying into ONT, as well as AS.

And both have trimmed flight schedules in last years. In WN's case they clearly stated it was the Inland Empire economy to blame. Even still they are some 50% of enplanements today.

newsstory:
Over the last few years virtually every tenant carrier including ExpressJet, United Airlines, Delta Airlines, Alaska Airlines Southwest Airlines and JetBlue Airways have eliminated or slashed service, with the largest reduction by Southwest.

Southwest Airlines representatives say the cut in daily departures by a third in the last several years was due to plummeting demand for air service for this once fast-growing region.

"It is a huge drop," said Jack Keady, an aviation consultant. "Ontario is dependent on greater Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, where foreclosures are high, unemployment is high and there is no job creation. People are not going to spend money today on travel."

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: aquablue
Posted 2012-03-07 23:44:42 and read 3416 times.

What's the plan when the limits are reached for LAX and the small airports around are full too (without expansion)? Is that when ONT is going to really kick in to high gear?

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: SurfandSnow
Posted 2012-03-08 02:23:28 and read 3328 times.

I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. The airlines will continue to adjust their services to ONT, for better or for worse, based on market demand. Even if the good folks of Ontario manage to achieve their goal and take control of the airport, they can't change the simple fact that:

- The local economy of the Inland Empire (primary catchment area) is abysmal. The housing crisis and recession have hit the area exceptionally hard; very few places anywhere in the U.S. fared worse. As such, many in the area are struggling just to hold (or get) jobs and keep their homes. Those frequent jaunts to Vegas they might have been taking 5-10 years ago are absolutely out of the question these days.

- Even during the good years, local demographics were quite unfavorable. In 2006, near the peak of the most recent boom period, the Inland Empire was found to be the area with the second-lowest per capita income in the country*. When you take into account the state's relatively high taxes and cost of living, the average local Inland Empire resident may very well have been poorer (in terms of discretionary income that could be spent on things like travel) than the average inhabitant of virtually any other decent-sized metropolitan area in the entire country.

- Relatively small corporate presence in the nearby vicinity to provide airlines with those all-important frequent biz travelers. Other area airports like LAX, BUR, and SNA are MUCH closer to the corporate heart of Greater Los Angeles. The primary driver behind the immediate local economy (aside from the volatile housing and retail sectors) would be logistics. That is an industry that benefits the bottom line of overland trucking businesses and UPS, a heavy user of ONT, far more than commercial airlines.

- Broad airline industry trends do not favor the likes of ONT. The mergers between the major legacy players and now also the big LCCs inevitably result in the elimination of duplicative facilities (ticket counters, gates, airport offices, etc.), capacity/frequency, and routes. That means less rental income, fewer opportunities to charge landing fees, etc. Moreover, legacies and now LCCs have shifted their focus away from secondary metropolitan area airports like ONT to higher-yielding primary airports like LAX.

- Few people really have any clue what or where "Ontario" is. The city has virtually no claim to national or global fame aside from its airport. At least Oakland is in the primary public consciousness because of its pro sports teams, Burbank's name is frequently announced by various broadcasters that reach a national audience, etc. Those that do know about ONT know it is very far from the city's primary/posh areas and tourist attractions - way out in the bedroom community boonies. Angelenos are notoriously reluctant to drive far, many will complain if they have to drive just a few miles out to the beach or into/out of the valley to meet friends. Even though ONT is right off the 10 freeway, this a city where few people ever make it downtown - let alone 35 miles east of it. I sometimes wonder if anyone living west of the 101/110 knows there is anything east of downtown at all...

All of that said, I am absolutely dumbfounded as to why people are so upset with the current situation at ONT. They should be thankful for everything they have:

- 2 beautiful, spacious terminals that just so happen to be far nicer than anything else in the Greater Los Angeles area (ok, SNA comes close, but with so little space between the road and the gates, it feels very tight/congested).

- 2 nice long runways. Very little chance of overshooting an incredibly short sence to help keep fares low. Moreover, this low fare airline prominently advertises ONT as a convenient alternative to Palm Springs, helping put the airport on the map.

The things people are complaining about are ridiculous.

Massive cutbacks by WN and other carriers? Ok, WN now only offers 8 daily flights each to LAS and PHX instead of the 14 they had to them before. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think those schedules are still more than adequate to meet everybody's needs. Most of the established nonstop markets from ONT (not the ones only added during the 90s/00s boom like JFK and HNL) have seen frequency reductions and/or downgauges, but are still going strong today. This trend is not unique to ONT - very few domestic sectors have seen notable increases within the last two decades.

No flights to ORD? For those headed to Chicago itself there's low fare nonstop service to MDW, which is a much nicer airport that is much closer to the city. For those connecting beyond ORD, I can't imagine there is much you can't just as easily reach via a superior alternate hub like SLC, PHX, DEN, IAH, MDW, DFW or ATL.

No more B6? Come on, it's not like that service had been going for 20 or 30 years. People connected before (or used other area airports) and can do it again. Even the wealthy, prolific SNA market can't support nonstops to JFK, though they do have several daily to EWR. Given the high costs and competitive nature of transcons these days, it would be shocking if they were still flying JFK-ONT...

*http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/10/local/me-growth10

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: AWACSooner
Posted 2012-03-08 08:28:26 and read 3203 times.

What about SBD as an alternative? Start from scratch on a practically bare airfield and see what happens?

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: N1120A
Posted 2012-03-08 09:41:04 and read 3141 times.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 32):
What about SBD as an alternative? Start from scratch on a practically bare airfield and see what happens?

That would make things even more problematic. SBD is way too close to ONT to be of any use. ONT is a great airfield with lots of room for growth. When they built the new terminals at ONT, they were built specifically with the ability to put in 2 more if needed. That giant gap between them is there because they plan on building a terminal there once ONT reaches certain traffic levels.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 31):
Even the wealthy, prolific SNA market can't support nonstops to JFK, though they do have several daily to EWR.

SNA can't support B6 because of the short runway.

Quoting aquablue (Reply 30):
What's the plan when the limits are reached for LAX and the small airports around are full too (without expansion)? Is that when ONT is going to really kick in to high gear?

That is what will theoretically happen. A connection to ONT is already envisioned on CA HSR as well as on the Metro Gold Line. That will help growth. Having a train connection has helped BUR.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 29):
No slots at BUR, and plenty of vacant ticket counter space.

But not so many vacant gates.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: point2point
Posted 2012-03-08 10:17:52 and read 3091 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
BUR is not slot restricted - it is small. Unless and until the NIMBY's allow them to build a new terminal, they can't do much.

Okay, thank you for this, and now if I may ask, are there any sort of restrictions at BUR? Maybe the size of the aircraft, maybe the hours of operations, or anything like that? I guess my assumption here is that BUR is the friendly little neighborhood airport there, and that the folks around there (NIMBYs or such) want to keep it as such.

I would imagine that let's say...... hypothetically...... a new airline was to start-up and wanted to have 100 daily flights out of BUR, with all sorts of sizes of aircraft to all sorts of destinations around the world. And with this hypothetical, I just don't think that it would be possible. As for ONT, I do believe this hypothetical would not only be possible, but would even be sought after, yes?

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 29):
No slots at LAX, for gates, well terminals are mostly under long term lease to tenant airlines, but that has not been an issue for carriers like JetBlue, Spirit, Sun Country etc to enter and grow at LAX.

In reality LAWA has strong interest in seeing traffic utilize other airports like ONT, as they are under court order to limit growth at LAX.

And thank you for this. And my thinking here is sort of along the lines of this. It seems that somehow LAX (at least to me, and I could be wrong here) is not the easiest airport to get into, but as stated, the airlines, if the really want in, do so here.



And now time for   

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: apodino
Posted 2012-03-08 10:50:19 and read 3054 times.

Quoting point2point (Reply 34):

Okay, thank you for this, and now if I may ask, are there any sort of restrictions at BUR? Maybe the size of the aircraft, maybe the hours of operations, or anything like that? I guess my assumption here is that BUR is the friendly little neighborhood airport there, and that the folks around there (NIMBYs or such) want to keep it as such.

There are a lot of issues with BUR that aren't necessarily restrictions, but impediments to big operations. One being the runways and terrain near the airport, which basically mean you can't operate Widebodies into there, and transcons can even be problematic. Runway expansion is out of the question due to NIMBYism. The other thing that is problematic with NIMBY's is the terminal itself. The terminal is very outdated, and actually is too close by today's standards to runway 8-26 for a safety buffer (That being said, it is grandfathered in). They would like to build a new terminal, which wouldn't be any bigger than the current terminal and would keep the airport about the same size, but it would create a safer environment and would actually allow for jetbridges to be used (Because the terminal is too close to the runway, Airstairs are a necessity there.) However, NIMBY's always believe that a new terminal means expansion even when it isn't so there is opposition to that. Also, given the grim financial situation in the entire state of California, money for such a terminal may be hard to find.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-03-08 11:37:12 and read 3019 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
Because it does serve a certain market and is the only airport in the area with the infrastructure to cope with the need to divert heavily from LAX.
Quoting mercure1 (Reply 29):
Its a community airport that serves as reliever in the greater LA basin

But it hasn't. Airlines were pulling out and/or reducing service. Why? Because it costs too much to fly to ONT for airlines to even provide service.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: N1120A
Posted 2012-03-08 12:06:39 and read 2984 times.

Quoting point2point (Reply 34):
Okay, thank you for this, and now if I may ask, are there any sort of restrictions at BUR?

The restrictions are largely physical.

Quoting point2point (Reply 34):
Maybe the size of the aircraft, maybe the hours of operations, or anything like that?

There is a curfew. Aircraft size is limited only by the runways and ramps.

Quoting point2point (Reply 34):
I guess my assumption here is that BUR is the friendly little neighborhood airport there, and that the folks around there (NIMBYs or such) want to keep it as such.

Its really hypocrisy. They love flying out of BUR, moan about LAX, but never want progress at BUR.

Quoting point2point (Reply 34):
As for ONT, I do believe this hypothetical would not only be possible, but would even be sought after, yes?

It could happen at ONT, but the money and population isn't there.

Quoting apodino (Reply 35):
There are a lot of issues with BUR that aren't necessarily restrictions, but impediments to big operations. One being the runways and terrain near the airport, which basically mean you can't operate Widebodies into there

Actually, FedEx operates a daily A300 at BUR. UA used to operate a 762 to ORD. A 757 can operate a transcon out of BUR without a single issue. The main runway is not THAT short.

Quoting apodino (Reply 35):
Runway expansion is out of the question due to NIMBYism.

Not to mention the infrastructure nightmare. There simply isn't anywhere to put a new runway.

Quoting apodino (Reply 35):
Also, given the grim financial situation in the entire state of California, money for such a terminal may be hard to find.

Actually, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority has plenty of money. Lockheed gave them the land for free and the plans are already set. Its just NIMBY problems at this point.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 36):
Because it costs too much to fly to ONT for airlines to even provide service.

Absolutely not. Even if ONT cost the same as BUR, it would still not get more service. Why? Because the economy in the Inland Empire sucks.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 36):
But it hasn't. Airlines were pulling out and/or reducing service. Why?

No. Airlines have reduced service everywhere. Why? Consolidation and fuel.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-03-08 12:54:19 and read 2926 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
Absolutely not.

Then explain why airlines have either pulled out of ONT or reduced service and saying it is becuase of the high cost to do business there? Sooner or later, ONT is going to become a ghost town.

Airlines are going to LAX instead of ONT. To me, that does not help the congestion at LAX.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
Airlines have reduced service everywhere.

I'm talking about ONT and LAWA, not DEN, not SEA, not LGA, not DCA, certainly not MIA. I'm talking about ONT and the LAWA.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: N1120A
Posted 2012-03-08 13:10:23 and read 2909 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 38):
Then explain why airlines have either pulled out of ONT or reduced service and saying it is becuase of the high cost to do business there?

Airlines give lots of reasons for things. LAX was the cheapest, by far, major hub airport in the world. They were talking about raising fees years ago, a fee rise that would still make LAX one of the cheapest major hubs in the world. The airlines screamed about it all day long.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 38):
I'm talking about ONT and LAWA, not DEN, not SEA, not LGA, not DCA, certainly not MIA. I'm talking about ONT and the LAWA.

Except that they all tie together. If you have capacity reductions, it will affect the smaller airports in weaker economic areas that have viable, nearby alternatives with better yields. ONT may have the second best airfield, but it has the worst yields and economic base of the 5 L.A. area commercial airports.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: mercure1
Posted 2012-03-08 13:38:16 and read 2865 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 38):

Then explain why airlines have either pulled out of ONT or reduced service and saying it is becuase of the high cost to do business there? Sooner or later, ONT is going to become a ghost town.

Ah.. how many times do we have to repeat the same.....

Airline fail to get revenues in ONT, because as we have clearly explained the market is in the toilet.

If you think cost is such an issue then explain why "cheap" airports like BUR, OAK etc, have also seen major service also?
ONT could be the most expensive airport in the world, but if the demand was there, then airlines would happily serve it.

Bottom line is airlines go where the passengers want, and where they can make money from those passengers.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: UAL747DEN
Posted 2012-03-08 16:26:01 and read 2758 times.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
Who is "they"? The 1970 census for Ontario was 64,000. In 2010 it was 164,000. Not necessarily the same people in Ontario now, I am not going to look up how old the current city council members are, but the oldest were probably barely of voting age in 1967.

LA had its reasons to want to take control of ONT in 1967. Part of this was for a good :LAX alternate that could not be provided by BUR. Question is why they feel the need to hold on to it now, when most constituents don't want an extra airport, and they know that Ontario is committed to operating it as an airport.

The point that seems to be missed here is the fact that LAWA owns ONT and it would be completely crazy for them to just turn the airport over because Ontario decided they want it back. LAWA did not acquire ONT to do their friends next door a favor and hold onto it until they wanted it back, they acquired it because it made a good financial decision and if now the city wants it back it looks like it must have been profitable and paid off. You have to think of LAWA owning it like any other business owning a sub.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 19):
When it comes to ONT, not really. F9 pulled out of ONT because of the high costs of flying there, same with a few other airlines.

Not completely the full story. F9 had several reasons to pull ONT, it was not all just high costs.

Something no one here has mentioned is that LAWA will often work with a carrier serving several of their facilities. Most airlines run all of the LAWA airports as the same operation as far as staffing and ops are concerned. It really makes a big difference.

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: mariner
Posted 2012-03-08 16:46:04 and read 2723 times.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 40):
Airline fail to get revenues in BUR, OAK etc, have also seen major service also?
ONT was the most expensive of the LA airports, by some margin:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep...cal/la-me-ontario-airport-20100915

"According to the proposal, LA/Ontario is more expensive for airlines compared with other commercial airports in Southern California. The cost per passenger was at least $14.50 for fiscal year 2009-10.

At the same time, the cost at Los Angeles International was $11, and it was even less at other airports: $9.93 at Orange County's John Wayne, $5.34 at Long Beach, $4.07 at Palm Springs and $2.10 at Burbank."


As you rightly say, high costs are not, in themselves, the only issue, but in these days of high fuel prices airlines will do everything they can to save a buck and given that SNA is slot restricted and BUR has capacity issues, the only viable alternative is probably LAX from a cost v. potential revenue perspective.

mariner


[Edited 2012-03-08 16:51:22]

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: slcdeltarumd11
Posted 2012-03-09 00:12:17 and read 2561 times.

Heres the busiest destnations and numbers for a year period ending late 2011. The area has been hit exceptionally hard so that is a factor to consider it does affect the numbers for obvious reasons.

1. Phoenix, Arizona
400,000

2.Oakland, California
240,000

3.Sacramento, California
220,000

4.Las Vegas, Nevada
210,000

5.Denver, Colorado
197,000

6.Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
183,000

7.Seattle, Washington
137,000

8.San Jose, California
136,000

9.Houston, Texas
135,000

10.Salt Lake City, Utah
90,000

Personally i just hope Delta can hold onto ATL and keep some mainline metal there with fuel prices shooting up

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: bjorn14
Posted 2012-03-09 02:57:47 and read 2497 times.

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 43):
3.Sacramento, California
220,000

This surprised me a bit. I thought LAS would be in the top 3. Why so much traffic to PHX?

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: beardown91737
Posted 2012-03-09 04:36:47 and read 2470 times.

The objective is not to try to get people living in Los Angeles to drive to ONT to get on an airplane. It is to be able to keep people who live closer to ONT at their local airport. It is also about being a viable alternative for those that live about halfway between ONT and another airport (BUR, SNA,or PSP).

Service has declined for various reasons that make complete sense to the airlines. Can anyone count on LAWA to get ONT back on track? What are the incentive for this agency of the City of Los Angeles? They want a nearby alternate to LAX for diversions, and they need to be able to show that they are working on their much publicized "regonalization" plan. For everyone outside of SoCal, this is LA's gesture to comfort LAX neighbors (even though the airport was there first) that they are doing something to relieve the noise, pollution, and ground traffic.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_1...onsiders-regionalization-strategy/

If the goal really was regionalization, then you would think that LAWA could have sold Allegiant that ONT is uncrowded, has short taxi times, no restrictions, and is only one or two miles further from Disneyland than LAX, but much closer than SBD. In the real world, Allegiant wound up at LAX and dozens of tourists get off G4 and get into rented cars on the 405 and 105 freeways.

Los Angeles has double digit unemployment, so their interest is in getting more jobs for their own city. No incentive to do anything at ONT until LAX is traffic is completely restored to its previous peak. Over 250,000 LA residents live closer to LGB than to LAX. Probably 1M live closer to BUR. The number of LA residents where ONT is the closest airport is zero. Therefore, growth at ONT benefits LA less than growth at BUR and LGB. LA would be better off arguing for a new terminal and lifted curfews at BUR, and more mainline slots allocated at LGB, because LA residents have a better chance to commute to jobs there.

The economy shares in the blame for ONT woes, but it is not much worse than Los Angeles itself, and much better than other areas of California. One reply made a big deal of the City of San Bernardino being the second poorest city in the US. No one denies that, but it doesn't remove that much of the IE from being able to afford air travel. The IE is here because of affordable but nice housing. Less than 1% of houses are foreclosed on. There are some really nice large houses here. Ironically the link that said San Bernardino is the second poorest city said Detroit is #1, and I don't see a thread admonishing DL to dismantle the DTW hub,

In the NYC area, the PANYNJ has an "NJ" in it. EWR does fine. In the Chicago area, the Chicago Department of Avation has an intrinsic interest in MDW. I would go as far as to say that both Mayors Daley had a great interest in MDW. Here in So Cal, it isn't the same. Ontario's interest is in getting more traffic to ONT to drive the local economic recovery. They want ONT to be in the hands of someone with a real stake in growth at ONT, not an agency that just tolerates it.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 31):
No flights to ORD? For those headed to Chicago itself there's low fare nonstop service to MDW, which is a much nicer airport that is much closer to the city. For those connecting beyond ORD, I can't imagine there is much you can't just as easily reach via a superior alternate hub like SLC, PHX, DEN, IAH, MDW, DFW or ATL.

There is 1x WN to MDW. Usually US or UA is a better fare to Chicago, or the DFW dogleg route on AA.

The connections from DEN, SLC, and PHX could get you to a bunch of secondary markets, but that thins out as it gets futhrer east. To get to get into tertiary markets and into places like the upper Midwest, PA, and upstate NY, you would need to connect at Midwest hubs like UA at ORD and DLat MSP or DTW. That would open up a lot of destinations with only one connection.



Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 15):
LAWA probably doesn't have a great business case for owning ONT either. If I was a citizen of Los Angeles, I'd wonder why my city owned another city's airport. Ontario citizens are obviously wondering the opposite thing.

  

Topic: RE: Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT
Username: beardown91737
Posted 2012-03-22 01:13:52 and read 2121 times.

More movement from supporters on the LA City Council.

LA to analyze >

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 44):
This surprised me a bit. I thought LAS would be in the top 3. Why so much traffic to PHX?
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 41):
You have to think of LAWA owning it like any other business owning a sub.

Businesses that own other businesses are trying to get the max return from both. These aren't businesses. LAWA operates ONT under the 1967 JPA and has obligations to promote ONT usage, and to operate ONT efficiently. Going to the Long Beach Travel Show to promote ONT over LGB and three other closer airports is only pretending to promote. Having more employees per emplanement than other airports is not operating efficiently.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 40):
Ah.. how many times do we have to repeat the same.....

Airline fail to get revenues in ONT, because as we have clearly explained the market is in the toilet.

Those searches were pointed to find bad economic conditions in the ONT area. They need to be taken in context with other areas in Southern California and the US. Sure the unemployment here is "worse", because it is 12.2% vs 11.2% in LA County. Picking on City of San Bernardino proves no more than finding a random poor suburb at fault for declines at any other city's airport.

There are plenty of $350,000 homes in this area. Having 1 of every 115 houses in foreclosure isn't as likely to affect the local area as much as it affects the areas where the lenders are based.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/