Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JetBlue Wants More Of LGB  
User currently offlineJetbluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2986 posts, RR: 14
Posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21478~2024338,00.html

JetBlue wants to improve the current terminal, and even expand. The article states that this would give the airline extra service to the airport.

I also read in an article about a month ago that JetBlue is changing its flying patterns over LGB. It's making a steeper climb and a quicker descent - therefore less noise would be heard on the ground.

Anyone know how likely it is that JetBlue gets more slots? If they do get these slots, how do you think the residents in the area would react? And how would JetBlue use these slots, would you think?

Any feedback is welcome!

JetBluefan1


Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2036 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2823 times:

I wish JetBlue the best of luck in their quest to expand LGB, but quite frankly pigs will fly before the local NIMBYs let anything get built at that airport.

User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5804 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2758 times:

The only way that JetBlue gets more slots is either someone else stops or reduces service at LGB or they can reduce the overall noise impacts. That is why the change in patterns.

The LGB ordinance is based on a cumulative noise level impact that is the same as what was in effect in 1990. The number of slots is calculated at LGB so that the cumulative noise never changes. Quieter ops can lead to more slots. But its a long process and I wouldn't expect to see major increases in the number of slots.

I like to check http://www.lbreport.com/airport/airport.htm for LGB info and updates.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 2667 times:

Let me tell you something and jetBlue will extra flight from IAD-LGB 3 to 4 daily roundtrip. It would be good to make more people go to LGB flight.

User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2545 times:

LGB is turning out to be a costly mistake for JetBlue---since they can't get the critical mass to run even a decent focus city.

I'd say it would be more prudent to move to another airport (Ontario or LAX) instead of continuing this losing battle.

Nice that they have 8 roundtrips to JFK! (I think)


User currently offlineJetbluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2986 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2503 times:

I'd say it would be more prudent to move to another airport (Ontario or LAX) instead of continuing this losing battle.

I agree that new flights should be moved into ONT or LAX, but JetBlue isn't 'losing a battle.' LGB is extremely profitable for JetBlue. The only problem is that they can't add more profitable flights. But it was a winning move for them to select LGB, IMO.

JetBluefan1



Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2384 times:




Long Beach was a great choice for Jetblue, when they were starting up, they just about got everything that they wanted, now that they are growing they will soon require an alternate airport for expansion until additional Long Beach slots open up.

Jetblue has great slot times at Long Beach, they are not going anywhere



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineScottb From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6764 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2364 times:

The following page at the LGB airport website should shed some light on the outlook for additional slots for air carriers at LGB:
http://www.lgb.org/content/Annual%20Noise%20Rpt/noise%20overview.htm

The executive summary in regard to slots is that the airlines were over their noise budget numbers by well over 10% for 7/1/02-6/30/03. While the actual calculation of the budget runs from 10/1-9/30 of each year, it's unlikely that the air carriers came in under-budget for that period given how far under they'd need to be in order to offset the previous nine months.

I'd add that given the noise budget calculations, it's unlikely that additional non-commuter slots will become available to the air carriers at LGB in light of jetBlue's service patterns. Operations from 7PM to 10 PM carry a triple noise budget penalty as compared to daytime operations, while operations between 10 PM and 7 AM are penalized by a factor of ten. Given how heavily jetBlue's LGB schedule is loaded towards evening/red-eye flights (with 4 flights at 9 PM or later and two additional flights between 7 and 9 PM) to increase utilization, they will always be penalized in the noise budget calculations, especially when the last couple of departures are a few minutes late.

I think they're going to have a serious fight on their hands to expand/upgrade the LGB terminal. It's pretty obvious that the folks around LGB are unhappy about increased activity and they're likely to make their unhappiness known when it comes time to vote for City Council members.

All that said, I have to agree with most others that LGB was probably a mistake when you look beyond a two-year horizon. The slot limitations and terminal facilities really put a hard upper limit on what jetBlue will be able to do there, and it's pretty clear that they'll have to switch focus to LAX or ONT if they want to expand further in Southern California. LGB is pretty much B6's ISP -- except WN can expand at ISP if they want.


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...
Airbus Wants Russians To Build More Of A350 posted Sat Dec 9 2006 18:27:07 by BoomBoom
JetBlue Going On Next Cities Of LGB Or JFK? posted Sat Mar 8 2003 17:23:22 by ScottysAir
Emirates Confirms A340 Cancelled, Wants More 777s posted Mon Oct 30 2006 15:46:26 by Clickhappy
Jetblue & ERJ175 For LGB? posted Wed Jun 28 2006 05:47:28 by B6WNQX
Boeing CEO Wants More German Know How posted Thu May 4 2006 22:55:01 by Columba
AF: More Of A "No" To Malaysia In Skyteam? posted Wed Mar 29 2006 17:56:07 by Airpearl
Pinnacle Wants More Time To Discuss NW Payments posted Tue Mar 7 2006 17:12:21 by TOLtommy
JetBlue Making Lots Of Fuel Stops Tonight (2/16) posted Fri Feb 17 2006 05:01:43 by Iowaman
Delta To Hire Out More Of Its Work posted Tue Jan 24 2006 04:34:50 by DL787932ER
Pegasus Airlines Wants More 737s posted Mon Nov 28 2005 20:16:51 by Bahadir