Lowecur From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 585 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 13770 times:
Analyst Bob McAdoo of Prudential stated this glaring fact on his downgrade yesterday. He cited all the Boston ftls, and really hinted at Jetblue's obsession with long haul flights as the culprit. Of course long-haul flts offer low CASM, but it is an artificial elixir that spelled doom for the old ATA. He cited the Florida flts and short haulers upstate as profitable.
Since Neeleman has hinted at deferring deliveries in the near term, I believe that Airbus will be the loser once this strategy is implemented (and I believe it will be implemented very shortly). Money will be made on the RASM end with the short to medium haul 190 in the next few years. They're already trying some shorthaul out west with the announcements from BUR.
Texan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4301 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 13501 times:
Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 3): As in more frequency = profitability or less frequency = profitability?
The general hub rule (I know we aren't talking about a hub, but it is a good analogy in this case) is that if one airline has more flights to more cities more frequently, that airline will receive a disproportionately large amount of the traffic. So theoretically, if jetBlue were to operate 10 daily flights between BOS-LGB/BUR, they would receive a large amount of LA bound traffic. It will not necessarily make routes profitable, however. All it does is give the airline increased market share.
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
WesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5739 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 12956 times:
Quoting Texan (Reply 4): All it does is give the airline increased market share.
This is what damn near killed CO way back in 1992. They had 16 daily flight between Greenville S.C., and Greensboro, N.C., and 8 dailies between Kansas City and Omaha, not to mention all the intra-Florida flights they used to have at $19, where you could also add a companion for only 1 cent more. Needless to say, those were the first things to go when Gordon took over.
Notbluejet From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12380 times:
That is not the case here though... I do not know of any route that is flooded with flights and not profitable on jetblues end.
The Florida flights are the ones that are saturated with frequency but they are also packed with 90%+ load factors. West coast startups are difficult, usually starting with one to two flights a day. Only ones that came out with a bang that I can remmber is Burbank with 3 dailys. Besides that Im not sure if space is an issue or if there just is no capacity in those markets.
Cities like PHX, ONT, PDX remain with 1 daily evening flight and a red eye return. This prevents RON of aircraft there for a prolonged period of time but in this case may be hurting profitablity with the somewhat inconvenient flight times.
Notbluejet From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12362 times:
Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 8): This is what damn near killed CO way back in 1992. They had 16 daily flight between Greenville S.C., and Greensboro, N.C., and 8 dailies between Kansas City and Omaha, not to mention all the intra-Florida flights they used to have at $19, where you could also add a companion for only 1 cent more. Needless to say, those were the first things to go when Gordon took over.
I do not see how this applies because the editor is stating that the upstate/florida routes are the ones that will help profits.
B6 has no intra-florida routes...... by florida routes he means JFK/EWR/BOS/LGA to florida.
GeorgiaAME From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1023 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12253 times:
I don't know how many routes JetBlue has abandoned, but I do know that I really enjoyed them Oakland to Atlanta a few years back. I'm still ticked that they pulled out, lack of profitability, but apparently they just could not compete against both Delta and AirTran, very much to Atlanta's loss. I am sure that lesson has not been lost on their management team. They are a good airline, offering a good product at a good price, and up until very recently, making a profit at it. They aren't in business to lose money, as the big six seem to be, and I cannot believe that lesson is lost at the top.
So a small plea to JetBlue: extend, but don't overextend, keep raking in the bucks, and please, come back to Atlanta! We could really use you.
"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
No, they have not. They have historically been high-yield money makers. However, since jetBlue entered the trans-con market from FLL, IAD, BOS, and JFK, the four biggest trans-con markets, the yields have suffered.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21683 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 11876 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 13): They have historically been high-yield money makers.
Especially for airlines that offer a first class product. Transcons LAX/SFO-NYC are one of the few routes in the USA where paying F pax are plentiful, and fares on these routes are high in F.
B6 doesn't offer anything but their standard fares, and they refuse to price the last minute one-way fares with the market (and people seem to be willing to pay those fares), so they are losing out on two high-yield parts of flying transcon right there. They also lose out by not connecting pax on to Europe in NYC, so they must rely on O&D non-premium, non-discount (WN) transcon traffic only, and compete with advance Y fares on CO, DL, UA, AA, US and others to do it. Tall order...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
RwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3166 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 11766 times:
I think part of B6's problem is that they fly to places like LGB, BUR, ONT and OAK instead of LAX and SFO. The yields are at SFO and LAX - they are preferred for business travellers because they are generally closer to the business centers, plus they offer international connections.
I could see B6 doing well with a couple frequencies to each city, but they're mainly chasing the leisure crowd with their choice of airports, so I don't see how more than 1-2 daily flights can really be that profitable.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33524 posts, RR: 71
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 11746 times:
Quoting RwSEA (Reply 18): I think part of B6's problem is that they fly to places like LGB, BUR, ONT and OAK instead of LAX and SFO. The yields are at SFO and LAX - they are preferred for business travellers because they are generally closer to the business centers, plus they offer international connections.
Not really. Since the airports indirectly compete with each other, many airlines are already matching fares across the board. For example, when jetBlue has FLL-LGB fare sales, AA will often match those fares on MIA-LAX. Also, secondary airports are often just as convinent, if not more convienent, to business travelers, especially Burbank and San Jose.
MajorNelson From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 11746 times:
Plus - - i just dont think the A320 is the plane for those long trans-cons either -- especially with all the fuel stops we hear about the B6 planes having to make - - that just adds to an already long flight.
I know that as much as i love B6 for Fla and shorter haul, I dont think I'd wanna fly them transcon for those reasons.
i just dont think the A320 is the plane for those long trans-cons either -- especially with all the fuel stops we hear about the B6 planes having to make
BINGO...319's would have been the way to go. I can't imagine how much extra $$$ B6 spends on those fuel stops. And remember, nothing west of DEN or SLC was in the original game plan of B6. The A320's were ordered with a 2/3 transcon system out of JFK planned.
Bigdrewfl From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 11295 times:
We have only droped out of 2 cities so far..... ATL and SDQ. I think the problem here at Jetblue is that we are not charging enough money for what we offer! I mean we have one of the highest load factors of any airline if not the highest!!! so how can we loose so much? We are not charging what we should!
If someone had asked me a month ago about where I see myself a couple of years from now let's say 8-10 years from now I would have said at my current position here at Jetblue as Flight Attendant. However, you ask me now and I would say I that I truely dont know! And it bothers me because I think Jetblue is a great company we just need to take a big look at the people we are hiring now, specially Management! Because we can either make the company or break it!