Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5645383/

Topic: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: southwest737500
Posted 2012-12-27 20:38:52 and read 6004 times.

Happy holidays

I was curious about B6 operation in LGB. I understand the airport is slot restricted. Here is the list if cities they offer out of LGB.Austin, Boston, Las Vegas, New York-JFK, Oakland, Portland (OR), Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Seattle/Tacoma, Washington-Dulles
Seasonal: Anchorage

I'm curious to no how many slots B6 has an how many flights

Is it possible to see a B6 flight to PHX if they have some slots. Also in May AUS goes 2X.

I understand B6 wanted to sneak into. Commuter slot for the E190. Is it possible the rules for the commuter alot could be levitated and If so where do you think these E190s will go too.

They could be used to beef u frequency open markets like DEN,PHX, ABQ or new markets like GEG,TUS , RNO, OKC TUL(I dout)

I'm biased an would love to see a LGB-CLT as seasonal but that's a DEAM

Thoughts

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-27 20:42:36 and read 5995 times.

JetBlue holds 32 air carrier slots.

The E190 does not qualify as a commuter. Its too heavy (limit it 75,000lbs).

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: southwest737500
Posted 2012-12-27 20:52:40 and read 5945 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):

Thank you

It would be nice if they could use the commuter slots for the E190 and just try to levitate the weight rule

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: iowaman
Posted 2012-12-27 21:50:03 and read 5804 times.

It seems B6 is the only one interested in LGB slots which is a smiliar situation with SNA and WN up the road. There seems to be a market willing to use LGB if the price is right as there is no doubt a lot of other options particularly for socal - Vegas and OAK which B6 competes on.

Quoting southwest737500 (Thread starter):
They could be used to beef u frequency open markets like DEN,PHX, ABQ or new markets like GEG,TUS , RNO, OKC TUL(I dout)

I'm biased an would love to see a LGB-CLT as seasonal but that's a DEAM

LGB-PHX would seem like a reasonable route for them to consider slot permitting. DEN would seem reasonable as well. GEG, TUS, OKC, and TUL all seem less likely in my opinion but who knows. WN is already cancelling ONT-RNO (a recently launched route) so I'm not sure how well LGB-RNO would fair. LGB-CLT is probably unlikely as you said.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: slcdeltarumd11
Posted 2012-12-27 22:09:01 and read 5755 times.

I think delta has applied in almost every recent opening for mainline slots too

[Edited 2012-12-27 22:11:07]

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: hawaiian717
Posted 2012-12-27 22:36:51 and read 5681 times.

Other airlines have expressed interest in LGB slots as well. When a slot becomes available interested airlines notify the airport, and if there is more interest then the number available, they are awarded by lottery.

With US already running up to 5x/day LGB-PHX with CRJ-900 and A319, I don't really see it as a likely JetBlue market.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: PassedV1
Posted 2012-12-28 00:09:27 and read 5556 times.

I think it's the ramp/terminal situation that makes LGB difficult.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: flyby519
Posted 2012-12-28 03:29:09 and read 5368 times.

Quoting southwest737500 (Reply 2):
It would be nice if they could use the commuter slots for the E190 and just try to levitate the weight rule

Local politics and airport authority make any changes at LGB pretty difficult. I believe that was B6's intiial idea when they were flying the E190s through LGB a few years ago.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: jetbluefan1
Posted 2012-12-28 03:48:45 and read 5330 times.

Slightly off topic, but today B6 announced a second frequency on LGB-AUS beginning in May 2013.

Quoting iowaman (Reply 3):
LGB-PHX would seem like a reasonable route for them to consider slot permitting. DEN would seem reasonable as well.

Why would PHX and DEN be reasonable? These must be extremely low-yielding routes, especially considering that WN offers loads of capacity out of LAX.

Then again, LGB-OAK/SFO/LAS aren't exactly high yielding...so you may have a point.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 6):

I think it's the ramp/terminal situation that makes LGB difficult.

The new terminal recently opened, and is significantly better than the old situation. Apparently the new terminal has preserved the integrity of the airport but made material upgrades to facilities.

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 7):
Local politics and airport authority make any changes at LGB pretty difficult. I believe that was B6's intiial idea when they were flying the E190s through LGB a few years ago.

This still boggles my mind. In case Long Beach-area residents live under a rock (possible), they would be aware that the unemployment rate in CA is 10%+. Allowing additional air service would vastly stimulate local economic activity. More airport employees would be hired, tax receipts would increase, and various industries would see significant increases in activity (rental car companies, hotels, restaurants, etc.) Leave it to a handful of idiotic residents to keep economic prosperity from having a chance. I bet PIT, CVG, and MEM residents would kill to be in a situation where an airline wants to expand at their airport. What a shame.

Just my $.02.

JetBluefan1

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: HeeseokKoo
Posted 2012-12-28 04:39:20 and read 5286 times.

Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8):
Slightly off topic, but today B6 announced a second frequency on LGB-AUS beginning in May 2013.

Awesome. Current single daily schedule is not good for Austin-base customers. New ones are good. Jetblue moves early morning JFK departure from 7am to 6am and put new LGB flight into 7am. Since B6 uses only one gate at Austin, it's unavoidable.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: jfklganyc
Posted 2012-12-28 06:07:41 and read 5187 times.

Jokes on LGB.

The would have had a viable mini hub there.

Instead, B6 moved transons to LAX...and they found that you make a lot more money at LAX.

My most pessimistic predicition (worst case scenario)...LGB is nothing more than redeye transcons to JFK and BOS 5 years from now.

The best case sceneraio is they keep what they have.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: jetbluefan1
Posted 2012-12-28 06:20:42 and read 5155 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 10):
My most pessimistic predicition (worst case scenario)...LGB is nothing more than redeye transcons to JFK and BOS 5 years from now.

This really wouldn't surprise me. At that point, might as well close the station completely.

That said, LGB still does account for a material amount of B6's capacity. Those seats are going to have to be placed somewhere else...BOS? SJU?

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 10):
The best case sceneraio is they keep what they have.

I guess it depends on which perspective you're taking.

For Long Beach-area residents and visitors, this is definitely best case -- low fares, high quality service to an easy-in/out municipal airport.

For B6, this is only a best case scenario if they can contain costs and profitably operate their current schedule. The intra-west flights have very low yields and do not particularly enhance B6's route network in a strategic way. I think the only reason LGB continues to be fully utilized by B6 is 1.) operating costs are very low, especially in comparison to competing airports and 2.) it makes the spokes much more viable from an operational efficiency perspective (i.e. 2x daytime LGB-PDX flights help lower the fixed costs allocated to PDX-JFK/BOS redeyes).

JetBluefan1

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: ICEBIRD757
Posted 2012-12-28 06:51:20 and read 5077 times.

Quoting southwest737500 (Thread starter):
They could be used to beef u frequency open markets like DEN,PHX, ABQ or new markets like GEG,TUS , RNO, OKC TUL(I dout)

DEN - Frontier/Republic tried this and failed, although there were running bad times and frequency IMO. Low lyield market. PHX - Low yield market and not worth trying to beat US off the route. ABQ and the rest mentioned - I don't see this happening.

I would like to see ANC 8 month to year round service and FAI seasonal. I always felt that YVR would do well but the canadian airports have such high taxes, it's not worth it. Now LGB-DFW I can see as AA did it for years from here and made good money at it also.

Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8):
Slightly off topic, but today B6 announced a second frequency on LGB-AUS beginning in May 2013.

I don't see that online or in my email from the company. I would not be surprised about this though, I thought a we would have gotten a second daily flight to AUS many months ago.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 6):
I think it's the ramp/terminal situation that makes LGB difficult.

Actually we opened the new terminal on 12-12-12. You can see pics on the top two posts here: http://klgb.blogspot.com/. Most customers love it and even the delays we have encountered in the last week, there really has not been much complaining from customers in general.

I like the new terminal although I don't have a view of the ramp now from my office but thats ok.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: LoneStarMike
Posted 2012-12-28 07:13:46 and read 5029 times.

Quoting ICEBIRD757 (Reply 12):
Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8):
Slightly off topic, but today B6 announced a second frequency on LGB-AUS beginning in May 2013.

I don't see that online or in my email from the company. I would not be surprised about this though, I thought a we would have gotten a second daily flight to AUS many months ago.

It was on one of Enilria's OAG threads & a press release has been posted on AUS' website:

Additional Long Beach nonstop announced by JetBlue

LoneStarMike

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: HeeseokKoo
Posted 2012-12-28 07:22:55 and read 5007 times.

Writer of crankyflier.com bases on Long Beach area, and he has deep understanding about what's happening around LGB. You may want to read some of them. His points include, why aircraft weight matters when noise level might be lower with heavier and newer aircraft, why longhauls keep disappearing in LGB, etc.

http://crankyflier.com/category/airports/lgb/
http://crankyflier.com/2009/07/21/lo...g-beachs-75000-pound-weight-limit/
http://crankyflier.com/2011/02/07/je...owly-disappearing-from-long-beach/

By the way, I wonder from where the slots for second AUS come from?

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: ICEBIRD757
Posted 2012-12-28 07:54:07 and read 4943 times.

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 14):
By the way, I wonder from where the slots for second AUS come from?

Currently we are only operating 25 flights a day rotating the use of some slots. So I would say this is part of the 7 slots rotating that will be filled for summer use.

I know Brett aka Cranky Flier and he is also a volunteer here at LGB as well as being a great guy.

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 13):
It was on one of Enilria's OAG threads & a press release has been posted on AUS' website:

Additional Long Beach nonstop announced by JetBlue

Nice! Now the night crew gets an AUS flight. I wonder if the flight will terminate in AUS or turn to JFK or BOS?

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-28 09:44:14 and read 4743 times.

Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8):
This still boggles my mind. In case Long Beach-area residents live under a rock (possible), they would be aware that the unemployment rate in CA is 10%+.

Technically its 9.9% as of last week.

But no, LB residents and those in adjacent areas don't live under a rock. Many suffer the nuisance of hearing the nearly 300,000 annual movements at the airport. Its a very busy field by any measure.

Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8):
Allowing additional air service would vastly stimulate local economic activity. More airport employees would be hired, tax receipts would increase, and various industries would see significant increases in activity (rental car companies, hotels, restaurants, etc.)

There are thankfully two side to a coin. As I said above the airport is also a nuisance to many, so why make it even worse.

Imo in reality the land the airport sits on could (some say should) continue to be repurposed for other economic activity.

An airport is not the end all or only economic option for a community.

Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8):
Leave it to a handful of idiotic residents to keep economic prosperity from having a chance.

Hardly handful. The last time airport growth came up in the city council I recall the there was a unanimous voice against it.

The approval of the new terminal was very much contingent on it not leading to increased activity.

Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8):
I bet PIT, CVG, and MEM residents would kill to be in a situation where an airline wants to expand at their airport.

Sure let them have open arms. If any one wants to serve PIT, CVG or MEM good for them.

LA basin and LGB is none of those cities and has different circumstances.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: richierich
Posted 2012-12-28 10:14:56 and read 4692 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 10):
My most pessimistic predicition (worst case scenario)...LGB is nothing more than redeye transcons to JFK and BOS 5 years from now.

You think it will take 5 years? I think far sooner than that. It's not being pessimistic, it's being realistic. JetBlue wanted LGB to make exceptions for them, it didn't happen and B6 went to LAX. And guess what, with a more business-oriented product, Jetblue has found that there is more money to be made from LAX anyway (albeit with some challenges and constraints.)

It does have to be said, however, that had LGB allowed JetBlue's E190s to be exempt from the slots that other airlines would be also be allowed to fly their Embraers to the airport. As it is right now, JetBlue practically "owns" LGB airport.

Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 11):
For B6, this is only a best case scenario if they can contain costs and profitably operate their current schedule.

And I don't know that they can be profitable from operating a small focus city without a major connection to the main hubs at JFK and BOS. One or two flights per day to each hub doesn't cut it.

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 14):

Writer of crankyflier.com bases on Long Beach area, and he has deep understanding about what's happening around LGB. You may want to read some of them. His points include, why aircraft weight matters when noise level might be lower with heavier and newer aircraft, why longhauls keep disappearing in LGB, etc.

Fifteen years ago, LGB was served primarily by DC-9s, MD-80s and older model B737s. Noisy aircraft. Today the airport is served by most A320s from B6, not silent but far far quieter than aircraft from a generation earlier. Not to mention that MD/Boeing is not producing civil aircraft at Long Beach now, although I am assuming there is still a fair amount of military aircraft production and activity.

The local residents of Long Beach have stunted their airport's potential, in my opinion. I can't say that allowing more commercial flights would have solved all of the financial woes in the region but it certainly wouldn't have hurt! More passengers = more tax dollars = more spending in the area and increased desirability for new companies to move to the region.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16):
Hardly handful. The last time airport growth came up in the city council I recall the there was a unanimous voice against it.

NIMBYs....gotta love them. How many of these residents lived in the Long Beach airport area before the airport existed? And is it quieter now than it was two decades ago?

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: ICEBIRD757
Posted 2012-12-28 10:24:56 and read 4674 times.

Quoting richierich (Reply 17):
You think it will take 5 years? I think far sooner than that. It's not being pessimistic, it's being realistic. JetBlue wanted LGB to make exceptions for them, it didn't happen and B6 went to LAX. And guess what, with a more business-oriented product, Jetblue has found that there is more money to be made from LAX anyway (albeit with some challenges and constraints.)

Some people around these parts believe that if VX were to dissappear, we would move our whole operation from LGB to LAX or atleast 50% of it.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: jetbluefan1
Posted 2012-12-28 10:44:01 and read 4625 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16):
There are thankfully two side to a coin. As I said above the airport is also a nuisance to many, so why make it even worse.

It's all relative. The MD plant is no longer there, and B6's A320's and E190's are much quieter than the aircraft that have flown into LGB in the past.

Then again, I understand it is difficult to get residents to buy this argument.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16):
Imo in reality the land the airport sits on could (some say should) continue to be repurposed for other economic activity.

An airport is not the end all or only economic option for a community.

I agree. The land is technically underutilized (now that the new terminal is open) due to none other than a city-backed ordinance. It may offer more economic benefit if used for something else.

Then again, one could argue that the business that develops from redeveloping the land will be taking away from business elsewhere (i.e. using the land for a mall would take away mall traffic elsewhere).

Maybe it should just be turned into a park. I'm sure the residents will appreciate it.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16):
Sure let them have open arms. If any one wants to serve PIT, CVG or MEM good for them.

LA basin and LGB is none of those cities and has different circumstances.

I understand your points -- PIT, CVG, and MEM are all 20th-century hubs which are no longer viable.

However, the LA basin suffers from the opposite -- limited ability to expand. LAX is bursting at the seams, SNA is slot controlled, BUR has limited terminal space, and ONT is not convenient for anyone other than those in the eastern parts of LA. Why impose an artificial maximum on capacity at the one airport which can technically handle some more traffic?

Quoting ICEBIRD757 (Reply 18):
Some people around these parts believe that if VX were to dissappear, we would move our whole operation from LGB to LAX or atleast 50% of it.

This wouldn't surprise me. B6 has become much more reactionary lately, rather than proactive as it was once was (though I do give B6's mgmt kudos for its unique Caribbean penetration). B6 is well positioned to take traffic from VX in the event it disappears (which I do NOT hope for, btw).

JetBluefan1

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-28 10:50:53 and read 4601 times.

LGB needs to choose between 3 options.
1) Truly become a commercial airport and try to keep a carrier such as B6 strong. Nice new terminal.
2) Shut down all Airline traffic.
3) Repurpose land. The LA basin has enough Airports.
They invest in a new terminal, restrict airline ops hugely, and no one that lives there likes all the noise. They seem to be really undecided, not a great idea in today's economy.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: slcdeltarumd11
Posted 2012-12-28 12:21:02 and read 4492 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 10):
The best case sceneraio is they keep what they have.

Well they cant add without more slots so they really are in a best case scenario. I wish they could add more and im sure jetblue does as well. LGB forced them to move the transcons as other said since they dont have enough slots and they have space at LAX. LGB just doesnt have enough slots for a true hub. It does seem to work as a focus city for mainly west coast flights and a few main cities for the fan base

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: laca773
Posted 2012-12-28 17:28:02 and read 3939 times.

It's nice LGB modernized their terminal. It needed it and is a popular place to fly from, especially for those who enjoy B6.

With the terminal enhancement and renovation, did the number of gates stay the same?

Is B6 only utilizing A320s out of LGB currently? When did B6 axe ORD-LGB?

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: laca773
Posted 2012-12-28 17:30:31 and read 3929 times.

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 4):
I think delta has applied in almost every recent opening for mainline slots too

Would DL fly mainline ATL-LGB with a 73H?

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: deltaflyertoo
Posted 2012-12-28 17:55:52 and read 3813 times.

Quoting richierich (Reply 17):
It's not being pessimistic, it's being realistic. JetBlue wanted LGB to make exceptions for them, it didn't happen and B6 went to LAX. And guess what, with a more business-oriented product, Jetblue has found that there is more money to be made from LAX anyway (albeit with some challenges and constraints.)

Agreed.

Just to add though I remember when B6 started at LGB, Neelman made it very clear that it wasn't so much they felt LGB was a market but more of being like the WN strategy of avoiding "big airports". Leather seats and inseat TV was revolutionary back then and gate space was tight at LAX (although they could have gotten a few). B6 bet the farm nobody else would come in with seat back TVs, low fares, leather seats, etc if for no other reason if they weren't going to get gates at LAX nobody else was either (And the high barrier of entry to start those kinds of services) hence sealing LGB in their minds as the "alternative" for good service/low fares for years to come. Fast forward 12 years and you have VX that figured out how to get more gates at LAX, DL with identical product and soon to be AA.

When B6 announced LAX to me (IMO only) it was an "oh Sh_t) moment when they realized competitors were going to upgrade their fleets and new entrants with an equal or better product was getting gates at LAX and so their decision to start LAX.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: iowaman
Posted 2012-12-28 18:19:13 and read 3826 times.

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 4):
I think delta has applied in almost every recent opening for mainline slots too

I did some research and I stand corrected - it appears in 2011 B6, DL, and US all applied for slots that G4 gave up.

Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8):
Why would PHX and DEN be reasonable? These must be extremely low-yielding routes, especially considering that WN offers loads of capacity out of LAX.

Then again, LGB-OAK/SFO/LAS aren't exactly high yielding...so you may have a point.

I think you answered your own question there - it seems B6 is going after the high O&D markets out of the LA basin regardless of whether there is a lot of comeptition or not. LGB-LAS seems to be doing well even though there is roughly 150 daily flights from the LA basin to Vegas on several different airlines. All B6 has to do is capture a small portion of the market in the huge O&D city pairs.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 10):
The best case sceneraio is they keep what they have.

Just my opinion - but I doubt B6 would be applying for slots if they were planning on shrinking or staying flat in LGB.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 20):
2) Shut down all Airline traffic.
3) Repurpose land. The LA basin has enough Airports.

Yes the LA basin has a lot of general aviation and commercial airports - but they all are very busy. Commercially the only airport that has a whole lot of extra capacity is ONT and that is inconvenent to a lot of residents by LAX and LGB of course.

Quoting laca773 (Reply 22):
Is B6 only utilizing A320s out of LGB currently? When did B6 axe ORD-LGB?

Only A320's. ORD-LGB was axed June 21 of this year. I'm not sure what the CASM is on E190's compared to the A320's but I suspect with yields being low it makes more sense to use a lower CASM plane.

Quoting laca773 (Reply 23):
Would DL fly mainline ATL-LGB with a 73H?

Would be a nice way to link LGB to a major hub in the east. B6 started this route 3x daily in 2003 but of course didn't have any connecting feed either (to be fair there was connecting OAK and LAS service but I would guess not many pax did this).

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: greg3322
Posted 2012-12-28 20:15:03 and read 3338 times.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 20):
LGB needs to choose between 3 options.
1) Truly become a commercial airport and try to keep a carrier such as B6 strong. Nice new terminal.
2) Shut down all Airline traffic.
3) Repurpose land. The LA basin has enough Airports.
They invest in a new terminal, restrict airline ops hugely, and no one that lives there likes all the noise. They seem to be really undecided, not a great idea in today's economy.

Hopefully #3 will never happen. There are not many large general aviation airports around any more. CPM is very small, TOA can handle some jets but is noise restricted, SNA is noise restricted, and FUL is just too small for jets, except for a couple of Citation models. Even though jetBlue is trying to run off general aviation at LGB, general aviation has a much bigger presance at LGB than the airlines - I base this on B6 pushing for the Class C airspace at LGB so they won't get TCAS alerts when on final for 30. It was actually said at an FAA meeting at LGB that jetBlue feels they have more rights than general aviaition becuase they have more people on board.

I still fly them, in spite of their anti-general aviation attitude, as I like their product better than the other airlines.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-28 20:30:05 and read 3347 times.

I have to agree that the LA area doesn't have much for GA apart from LGB and ONT. I was just listing options. I think that LGB should stay open, but they shouldn't keep it the way it is. I understand those who don't want the noise, especially of jets. I understand those who want a designated GA airport.

41 commercial and 25 commuter. Maybe bump these up a little, increase the B6 ops. Now that B6 is established, and the transcons are at LAX, B6 could easily axe the station down to 5 flights. If LGB wants a mix of carriers operating a few flights or if they want a GA airport, they can go ahead and let B6 go.

But if they want B6 (no guarantee that carriers would expand much in a B6 void with this economy) they need to cater to them. The new terminal is a start, but they should increase slots for B6 a little bit. Get Florida, a couple more transcons, and maybe San Diego. This could allow B6 to connect pax in LGB and have a mini hub. Adding 8 departures daily could do wonders. They could even tell B6 that the slots are reserved for certain markets, and get a contract signed dealing with minimum service for a year or two.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-28 21:31:40 and read 3207 times.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 27):
I have to agree that the LA area doesn't have much for GA apart from LGB and ONT.

Not much GA ?

We have the nations busiest GA airports - Van Nuys.

In total the greater LA basin has tons of airports. Here are a few
-Hawthorne
-Santa Monica
-Compton
-Torrance
-Long Beach
-Burbank
-Van Nuys
-Whiteman
-Los Alamitos
-El Monte
-Fullerton
-Brackett
-Santa Ana
-Avalon
-Upland
-Camarillo
-Chino
-Corona
-Oxnard
-Ontario
-Palmdale
-Lancaster
-Riverside
-Santa Paula
-Rialto
-Gorman
-Lake Elsinore
-Big Bear
-San Bernardino
-Victorville
-Hansen
-El Mirage
-Frazier Park
-Murrietta
-Hesperia
-Perris
-Mojave
-Redlands
-Lake Arrowhead
-Lebec
-Apple Valley

....And a few others I'm sure I missed.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-28 21:40:39 and read 3189 times.

I meant overall, not many large GA Airports for the population. I also meant to say that two large ones, LGB and ONT, receive commercial airliners.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-12-28 22:24:07 and read 3153 times.

I hope the new concourse provides the service at LGB fliers have expected. However, economics will dictate the decision and B6 has not been able to pull up the yield as they had planned. I personally use LGB as my preferred airport, but there need to be more destinations or a B6 hub to make it viable for many flights.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 10):
My most pessimistic predicition (worst case scenario)...LGB is nothing more than redeye transcons to JFK and BOS 5 years from now.

Some of the other routes do ok, but it could be reduced. I would be sad to see that... but it is possible.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 28):
Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 27):
I have to agree that the LA area doesn't have much for GA apart from LGB and ONT.

Not much GA ?

   I used to live near Zamparini (Torrance)... and that is a *tiny* field compared to many of the others.

Quoting iowaman (Reply 25):
I doubt B6 would be applying for slots if they were planning on shrinking or staying flat in LGB.

I think LGB has to grow or it will really shrink. It is a case of getting people to use the airport in their searches. LAX is just to easy to type into Orbitz (or the other engines). It took me a decade to convince my sister to give LGB a try despite several of her relatives loving the little airport. She'll finally do so on her next trip to Los Angeles. (Only due to her flying dropping so much that her AS status has 'fallen.') For whatever reason, too many think of flying to LA as flying to LAX... That keeps LGB nice, but B6 must grow to sustain the operations.

I suspect a kicker might be the NEO for B6. From either LAX or LGB the planes will reach Hawaii. That will help with connections. I suspect LAX will receive those flights first.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: greg3322
Posted 2012-12-28 23:17:51 and read 3111 times.

How many people live in the area served by these airports? 15 million? 20 million? Most of these airports have less than 5,000' runways. See my comments below.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 28):
Not much GA ?

We have the nations busiest GA airports - Van Nuys.

In total the greater LA basin has tons of airports. Here are a few
-Hawthorne
-Santa Monica (city trying to close)
-Compton (short, narrow runways)
-Torrance (strict noise rules)
-Long Beach (strict noise rules)
-Burbank (strict noise rules)
-Van Nuys (strict noise rules)
-Whiteman (short)
-Los Alamitos (not a public airport - military)
-El Monte (short)
-Fullerton (very short - my home field)
-Brackett
-Santa Ana (strict noise rules)
-Avalon (private, but public accessible)
-Upland (private, but public accessible)
-Camarillo
-Chino
-Corona (short)
-Oxnard
-Ontario
-Palmdale (not a public airport - government)
-Lancaster
-Riverside
-Santa Paula (tiny)
-Rialto (short)
-Gorman (heliport?)
-Lake Elsinore - (private - not public accesible and it is dirt)
-Big Bear
-San Bernardino
-Victorville
-Hansen (heliport?)
-El Mirage - (dirt)
-Frazier Park (another heliport?)
-Murrietta
-Hesperia (short)
-Perris (private)
-Mojave
-Redlands (short)
-Lake Arrowhead (heliport?)
-Lebec (never heard of)
-Apple Valley (short)

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: Beardown91737
Posted 2012-12-29 00:31:15 and read 3073 times.

LGB isn't positioned to be a hub unless there is traffic going to Hawaii or Mexico. In that case it would be B6 with the traffic since all the legacies outside of US have settled on LAX, and WN operates nearby at SNA and LAX, along with not-as-nearby at BUR and ONT. For B6, everything in the western USA is LGB, so they have to be careful to keep a profitable service level and not push it just to grab market share that they already have.

There is probably also support for LGB to stay open as well. Having a hassle free local airport outweighs needing to connect and paying a slightly higher fare. Having limited air carrier traffic will keep LGB open to GA.

Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8):
In case Long Beach-area residents live under a rock (possible), they would be aware that the unemployment rate in CA is 10%+. Allowing additional air service would vastly stimulate local economic activity.
In September 2012 Long Beach was 11.2%, as was LA. Lower numbers in the Bay Area, Orange County, and San Diego bring down the state average.

The Long Beach economy benefits from the oil industry, the nation's second busiest port, the busiest port across the harbor in Los Angeles, aerospace (though not what it used to be), and a major college. LGB is not as pivotal as airports in other communities. In addtion, for airport jobs, LAX is a little over 20 miles to the NW, and SNA is about the same distance to the east. Workers at LGB, SNA, and LAX probably pass each other every day on their way to work.

Quoting richierich (Reply 17):
More passengers = more tax dollars = more spending in the area and increased desirability for new companies to move to the region.

Only intra-California. Other companies are moving out of state or moving operations out of state. From a NIMBY POV, the jobs that would move in are probably from elsewhere in SoCal, and it would be preferable to have the traffic going away from Long Beach than into it.

Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 19):
LAX is bursting at the seams

Not really near its pre-recession peak. However in common-sense terms, the experience can be chaotic. That is why our relatives have been notified that we don't pick up from LAX.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: jetbluefan1
Posted 2012-12-29 06:16:45 and read 2962 times.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 32):
LGB isn't positioned to be a hub unless there is traffic going to Hawaii or Mexico.

I can imagine the cries of anger if B6 proposed customs facilities at LGB to enable Mexico/Central America flying. B6 would thrive, as it has found a great niche from JFK/FLL/MCO and likely has the pedigree to make it work from LGB. But watch out for those NIMBY's, who will likely have success stunting job creation and economic growth.

Hawaii service is very plausible once the NEO's and 321's arrive. I think a couple flights to the islands using the 321 would make perfect sense -- high capacity flights to serve the LA basin as well as connecting traffic.

JetBluefan1

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-29 08:43:11 and read 2848 times.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 29):
I meant overall, not many large GA Airports for the population. I also meant to say that two large ones, LGB and GA traffic in LA basin?

Also GA traffic. There is no need for GA traffic to use GA airports (Chino, Upland, La Verne, Corona, Riverside 2x, Rialto)

In entire 2011 GA movements. That less then some GA airports get in 1-month.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 30):
However, economics will dictate the decision and B6 has not been able to pull up the yield as they had planned.

  . For B6 they are realizing the dollars are up at LAX, and LGB route earnings have trailed.

Personally I do wonder how long B6 will be content having capacity tied up running mostly West Coast flying at LGB if other more profitable opportunities for the equipment are out there.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 30):
I used to live near Zamparini (Torrance)... and that is a *tiny* field compared to many of the others.

Yes little TOA is one of the busier fields in the basin for GA activity. Busier then
Quoting greg3322 (Reply 31):
How many people live in the area served by these airports? 15 million? 20 million? Most of these airports have less than 5,000' runways.

Again, the point is SoCal has airports of every size and capacity in every corner.

Imo we are overbuilt on airports frankly.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 32):
LGB isn't positioned to be a hub unless there is traffic going to Hawaii or Mexico.

Forget Mexico. No FIS and no plans.

Actually the LGB redevelopment plans have clause they excludes any potential future push for such.

LGB does not even have clearance capability for international GA traffic either.

[Edited 2012-12-29 08:55:49]

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-29 08:57:10 and read 2813 times.

Does anyone else think LGB-Florida could work with West coast connections? Is too much of the service taken by their own LAX-FLL and all of the other SoCal-Florida service?

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: southwest737500
Posted 2012-12-29 19:08:36 and read 2555 times.

So you think LGB-HNL could be reality in the future

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-29 19:13:22 and read 2557 times.

I doubt LGB-HNL. I wouldn't doubt DEN, DFW or IAH, ORD, and Florida. But only if LGB does something to make themselves more attractive to B6

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: airliner371
Posted 2012-12-29 19:20:11 and read 2535 times.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 37):
IAH,

They serve HOU not IAH, non the less, I highly doubt it.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-29 19:35:15 and read 2503 times.

Thanks for correcting me! I doubt HOU. If and only if LGB gives them a few more slots and offers incentives, B6 might start one more Texan airport, one in Florida, and maybe two others elsewhere. B6 is quite weak in DFW and HOU, and maybe adding one west coast airport for one of them could be a good expansion, though I expect Florida first (both from Texas and LGB.)

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: ICEBIRD757
Posted 2012-12-30 12:43:01 and read 2264 times.

Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 33):
I can imagine the cries of anger if B6 proposed customs facilities at LGB to enable Mexico/Central America flying. B6 would thrive, as it has found a great niche from JFK/FLL/MCO and likely has the pedigree to make it work from LGB. But watch out for those NIMBY's, who will likely have success stunting job creation and economic growth.

The airport is already aware that the airlines as a group would like customs as does the GA traffic.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 37):
I doubt LGB-HNL. I wouldn't doubt DEN, DFW or IAH, ORD, and Florida. But only if LGB does something to make themselves more attractive to B6

LGB-HNL, forget the whole Hawaii market from the west coast for B6, ain't gonna happen. LGB-DEN like I said before, nope cause it's a low yield market. LGB-ORD, we stopped service because the route was not making money. LGB-IAH, LGB-HOU, I doubt those two. LGB-DFW I can see this happening. Like I said before, AA made good money on the LGB-DFW route.

Currently LGB has 11 gates. B6 operated out the the north terminal with gates 5-11.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: Flytravel
Posted 2013-01-02 14:22:18 and read 1849 times.

Quoting ICEBIRD757 (Reply 40):
LGB-IAH, LGB-HOU, I doubt those two. LGB-DFW I can see this happening. Like I said before, AA made good money on the LGB-DFW route.

Just curious why HOU is on the doubt list, but DFW is good? I'd think both are good ideas- large markets, relatively the same length to LGB, thus would be good markets to link to LGB. It'd also help attract pax from these big markets to fly B6, where pax know they can fly to a few more places on B6, or atleast more locations than the Northeast.

If slots were limited, I'd think it'd be worthwhile to replace service for LGB-HOU and LGB-DFW.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: AADC10
Posted 2013-01-02 15:11:32 and read 1747 times.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 35):
Does anyone else think LGB-Florida could work with West coast connections?

I doubt it. LAX-Florida is marginal, with the exception of LAX-MIA on AA. While LAX is big enough to support non-stop flights to a number of Florida destinations, there cannot be very many of them. Tourists will tolerate a stop to get lower fares and Florida does not have the appeal in Southern California that it does in New York. A tourist would be more willing to tolerate LGB-JFK-Florida.

I would not be surprised to see B6 drop LGB-IAD and replace it with more regional flights. There are not enough slots at LGB to reach hub critical mass, so it may be better to add frequencies on a shorter flight. B6 has limited frequencies and destinations, making it inconvenient for business travelers.

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: flyby519
Posted 2013-01-02 18:28:37 and read 1619 times.

How about LGB-Mexico? Plausible for B6?

Ive heard the new terminal construction is designed to handle international operations in the future.

[Edited 2013-01-02 18:29:32]

Topic: RE: JetBlue LGB Operation
Username: Flytravel
Posted 2013-01-02 18:55:29 and read 1573 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 10):
The best case sceneraio is they keep what they have.

It could optimize LGB to service DFW, HOU and maybe ABQ that are more regional, even if just 1x daily for these cities.

These are markets with JFK only service. Or with DFW it's BOS. Repeat customers not from the JFK or BOS point of sale side, that is from HOU, DFW and ABQ, supporting the flight to JFK or BOS, get no real vacation destinations as a perk currently with just JFK/BOS access.

[Edited 2013-01-02 19:08:38]


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/