Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JetBlue's Logic In Long Beach, CA?  
User currently offlineAirT85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2679 times:

Hi All
First, I'd like to say I am very happy to hear that starting this may I'll be able to see jetBlue A-320s in Atlanta! However, I was wondering-what's the logic behind having Long Beach as a focus city?
jetBlue is only limited to 23 slots there (one of which belongs to Alaska or can be taken up by AS?)
Why would an airline turn a city into a focus-city if they aren't able to provide extensive operations to that city? They can either offer frequency to several cities or one-daily flights to many? I understand choosing LGB over LAX, but how do you make it a viable mini-hub with the slot restrictions in place?
Thanks for any help here!
Tony

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2640 times:

They're banking on being able to get around them.

N


User currently offlineAirT85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2636 times:

Is there a contingency plan in case they can't?

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

I think they'll be perfectly happy with the number of flights they have. They offer more service to LGB than anyone else. They'll just have to move on to another focus city after this.

N


User currently offlineOzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5225 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2569 times:

It's a focus city, not a mini-hub. Some connections may be made from OAK and possibly LAS, but LGB is an uncongested airport in one the world's major air markets. Granted, they are slot limited, and there will undoubtably be schedule/route changes to maximise their revenues, but the logic is brilliant.
Become the dominant carrier at a wonderfully located alternate airport, keep any significant competition out via slot controls, and charge a reasonable fare.
Imagine if Meigs Field in Chicago had a 6500ft runway and slots for about 40 flights a day...airlines would be fighting tooth and nail to get in there!



The best IFE: A window seat and a good book.
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5844 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

Don't forget that there were only a couple of choices in Southern California (the 2nd largest metro area in the US) for an airline looking to operate a lot of flights. SNA is slot controlled with a years long waiting list. LAX and BUR are already congested and busy. That left LGB and ONT. ONT is a nice airport but has WN and any competitors could easily add flights to compete with JetBlue. LGB had only 2 competitors operating there and the slots limited any other airlines from entering to compete on a large scale.


"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineONT 737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 591 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2529 times:

I'm just keep wondering what B6's original intentions with ONT were. They started service to ONT well before LGB and even added a 2nd flight, but then cut one of the flights and then built up a focus city in LGB. On the surface it looks like they just changed their mind on what airport to focus on. I don't blame them. LGB has a much more lucrative passenger base to draw from than ONT. Even if they can't develop a true 'hub' there is it still worth it. Hey if it is profitable.... who cares. As for ONT they are probably keeping the red eye because it beats having a plane parked in JFK for the night and not making any money. (ie aircraft utilization) It will be interesting to see B6's long term plans for the So Cal market turn out. After the dust settles in LGB I will be very surprised if jetBlue gets more than a few more slots and would be even more surprised to see AS, HP or AA to give up any of theirs... ever.


"The world is run by C students"-Harry Truman
User currently offlineKwbl From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2388 times:

Speaking of America West, could they not sell their slots to AA, B6 or someone else and the use the CRJ 700 to Phx? There are a bunch of unused regional slots available I believe.

User currently offlineONT 737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 591 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2293 times:

I can not think of any good reason for HP to sell their LGB slots to anyone. Especially B6 since they have expressed interest in LGB-PHX before. Anyway we are not strapped for cash and we are flying RJs into LGB. However we are flying the CR7s (4 of our 5 daily PHX flights) in there and they are too big for the typical RJ slot. Thats why we don't get the CR7s here in SNA.


"The world is run by C students"-Harry Truman
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5844 posts, RR: 28
Reply 9, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

I thought the CR7s could fit under the regional slots at LGB. The regional slots at LGB are reserved for "aircraft having a certificated maximum takeoff weight less than seventy-five thousand pounds".
http://www.lbreport.com/airport/munilgb.htm#010

Isn't the MTOW on the CRJ700 was 72,750 for the standard config and 75,000 for the ER?



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2085 times:

I think that by having LGB as a focus city, they can actually siphon off LA bound pax from other carriers by the amenities and by offering a very competitive price at the same time. Adding Atlanta was a bit of a surprise, but I think LGB-ATL is just the start for JetBlue, ATL will probably have JFK-ATL flights by the end of this year, especially since most of Delta's ATL-JFK flights are with CRJs. Long Beach was an example of an underserved airport (the last airline that considered LGB as their hub was Jet America, who were later bought out by Alaska), and in a metro area with multiple commercial airports. I would guess that eventually they will have more slots for LGB, and one of the reasons why they are starting service to FLL and ATL is that they have to use the slots or they lose them, and would probably not get them back.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Smooth Jet In Long Beach... What Happened posted Wed Jul 12 2006 04:55:24 by Canflight
Was The MD12 Going To Be Built In Long Beach posted Mon Apr 24 2006 02:56:59 by 747400sp
Boeing In Long Beach posted Sat Mar 17 2001 01:49:33 by Early Air
Jetblue Long Beach Check-in Hours posted Mon Jun 14 2004 19:37:41 by HpB737100
Could JetBlue Invade MX From Long Beach With 190s posted Thu Nov 25 2004 21:52:48 by Pilotcoex
JetBlue@Long Beach posted Sun Aug 4 2002 16:07:55 by BA319-131
Logic In Not Ordering Winglets On Brand New Planes posted Thu Apr 19 2007 01:44:29 by AviationAddict
CO:Connect Time In Los Angeles, CA (LAX) Is -23 Mn posted Thu Apr 19 2007 00:48:15 by Lincoln
Irate JetBlue Passengers IN BOS Police Called In posted Fri Feb 16 2007 17:23:27 by ADiZzy
Douglas Park At Long Beach posted Sun Oct 22 2006 15:37:45 by DIJKKIJK