Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No WN At LGB?  
User currently offline28L28L From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 459 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5285 times:

Anyone know why Southwest never began service to LGB? Their expansion into California cities currently served was completed by 1994, well before B6 began operations. Just curious if anyone has any theories? Sorry if it has already been discussed.

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeingfever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5268 times:

Possible to close to LAX and SNA which they both served by 1994.


Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5804 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5271 times:

I can only speculate, maybe someone knows for sure.

LGB was sued by several airlines in 1983 when it attempted to limit airport noise. The lawsuit was not settled until 1995 when the current slots were agreed to.

So WN may not have wanted to deal with the legal situation. The 12 years may have meant that LGB missed its opening.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5246 times:

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 2):
LGB was sued by several airlines in 1983 when it attempted to limit airport noise. The lawsuit was not settled until 1995 when the current slots were agreed to.

Interesting... So the people with their expensive houses did not want to hear planes flying low overhead as they came into LGB or take off from there. Did WN still have 732s at the time? When did they get rid of their 732 aircraft?



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25400 posts, RR: 49
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5245 times:

There simply is no growth options for LGB. Even if SWA would have beaten Jetblue and acquired all the vacant slots available it would merely be able to mount 25 or so daily flights. This compares to about 110 up the road at LAX.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5235 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 4):
Even if SWA would have beaten Jetblue and acquired all the vacant slots available it would merely be able to mount 25 or so daily flights. This compares to about 110 up the road at LAX.

This would basically be a split then of one of WN's larger stations... Yeah, that seems logical...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5228 times:

Quoting 28L28L (Thread starter):
Anyone know why Southwest never began service to LGB?

Because LGB is a dumb airport to serve if you serve LAX and SNA (and not a great move if you don't serve them). AA, DL, others have discovered this.

LGB only makes sense for people who live within a 10 mile radius of LGB, and even then, LAX or SNA are not that much further. And LGB makes no sense for people who live North of LAX.

WN seems to be doing pretty well with BUR, ONT, LAX and SNA. LGB offers them nothing.

People talk about how B6 beat AA out of LGB, etc. Again, LGB really makes no sense for AA who serves the same airports as WN.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5228 times:

Because LGB is a capacity controlled airport and under an agreement with local residents, there is a cap on the number of daily commercial & cargo flights out of the airport. So airlines get slots to operate out of airport (which are allocated by the airport authority), and WN tends to avoid these types of airport mainly for scheduling reasons. Some airports have strict slot controls where if the flight is late arriving or departing and is past the time period of their slot, the flight may not be allowed to operate or land and that can affect flights elsewhere in an airline's system. Plus slot controlled airports limit the amount of growth an airline can do there as well, and for WN having the ability to expand out of a city is important, which is part of the reason why LGB has been bypassed as an L.A.-area airport by WN.

User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5804 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5210 times:

Although AS seems to make them all work.  Wink


"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5804 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5200 times:

Don't forget that SNA did not start until 1994. LAX started in 1982. There were a lot of years that LGB could have been added.


"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25400 posts, RR: 49
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5197 times:

I'd agree with Ikramerica that for carriers that serve other nearby airports such as LAX and SNA, serving LGB is somewhat a needless duplication that focus on serving more the local community.

However LGB on its own, does pull people in far and wide across the LA metro area. A couple years back I saw a study which sampled boardings of passengers at LGB.

Basically the airport regularly pulled as far North as the Westside, the entire South Bay, South towards Northern OC cities such as Seal and Huntington Beach, then inland up thru Fullerton, Norwalk, Downey, Whittier, El Monte, Alhambra, and Central Los Angeles. Certainly an area that compromises several million people.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5166 times:

Quoting Boeingfever777 (Reply 1):
Possible to close to LAX and SNA which they both served by 1994.

It isn't that so much as it is the growth opportunities

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 3):
So the people with their expensive houses did not want to hear planes flying low overhead as they came into LGB or take off from there.

The houses around there were not particularly expensive in those days.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 3):
When did they get rid of their 732 aircraft?

Last year

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 4):
This compares to about 110 up the road at LAX.

Not to mention 27 flights at SNA, about twice that at BUR and ONT.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 5):
This would basically be a split then of one of WN's larger stations...

Not really. WN already flies to 4 of the 5 Basin airports and could pretty easily draw at LGB

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
LGB only makes sense for people who live within a 10 mile radius of LGB, and even then, LAX or SNA are not that much further

I disagree. The sheer convinience of LGB draws rather heavily from places within more of a 30 mile radius, which is quite a large number as Laxintl says.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
People talk about how B6 beat AA out of LGB, etc. Again, LGB really makes no sense for AA who serves the same airports as WN.

LGB made sense for AA for years and years, they just tried to get greedy with it.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 9):
Don't forget that SNA did not start until 1994. LAX started in 1982. There were a lot of years that LGB could have been added.


BUR and ONT were added between the two.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 10):
Basically the airport regularly pulled as far North as the Westside, the entire South Bay, South towards Northern OC cities such as Seal and Huntington Beach, then inland up thru Fullerton, Norwalk, Downey, Whittier, El Monte, Alhambra, and Central Los Angeles. Certainly an area that compromises several million people.

Complete agreement. Many on the Westside like LGB because you are generally going to drive against traffic flows (unless catching a red eye) and the parking is easier and cheaper than at LAX. I know countless people from all over Orange County, including the places you mentioned, along with Garden Grove and even Irvine (which is really where SNA is) who will pick LGB in part because the fares at SNA are never subsidized by cargo (ever wonder why WN never includes SNA in major fare sales?).



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5150 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
Not really. WN already flies to 4 of the 5 Basin airports and could pretty easily draw at LGB

Oh yeah that is true. They fly to ONT, BUR, and Orange County

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
The houses around there were not particularly expensive in those days.

Oh, I thought they were. Then again, that was what, 20 years ago? Yeah, I should know better...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineDolphinflyer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 201 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5146 times:

No slots available...

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5130 times:

Quoting Dolphinflyer (Reply 13):
No slots available...

There were plenty when WN could have started service.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineJFK998 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5108 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
Because LGB is a dumb airport to serve if you serve LAX and SNA (and not a great move if you don't serve them). AA, DL, others have discovered this.

LGB only makes sense for people who live within a 10 mile radius of LGB, and even then, LAX or SNA are not that much further. And LGB makes no sense for people who live North of LAX.

I agree to some degree that it would make no sense to fly to LGB if you fly to LAX and SNA becuase those are 2 major airports and LGB is small compared to them.

I disagree that it only makes sense for people who only live in a 10 mile radius. A lot of people prefer LGB to LAX as LAX is much more congested than LGB is. AND.. not me personally but there are a lot of people who would come from areas north of LAX to LGB just becuase of the congestion at LAX.

I have flown out of LAX many times prior to B6 starting up. I used to fly TWA JFK-LAX all the time. Only once after B6 began operations did I fly from LAX, and I showed up for my WN flight 2 1/2 hours prior to the flight only to find a mile long line out the door! Trust me, LGB isnt all that bad.

In response to the question to justify this post, WN doesnt fly to LGB simply becuase they already have a strong presence in the So-Cal market already.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5087 times:

Quoting JFK998 (Reply 15):
LAX and SNA becuase those are 2 major airports and LGB is small compared to them.

SNA isn't a particularly major airport, it is just a good reliever. LGB is actually a significantly larger airport than SNA from an airfield prospective and would be a much better place to fly from from an operations prospective (5 runways, one over 10,000 feet).



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5062 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 3):So the people with their expensive houses did not want to hear planes flying low overhead as they came into LGB or take off from there.
The houses around there were not particularly expensive in those days.

wrong. The Los Altos neighborhood, zip code 90815, is - and was in the mid 90's - the third most affluent area of Long Beach by home value ranking, and is directly under the flight path of aircraft using 12/30, the primary runway used by airlines at Long Beach. Residents of that neighborhood, and the Belmont Shore/Naples neighborhood (current average home value 1 million plus, to the SE of Los Altos) have always fought hard against expansion of LGB.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):
LGB is actually a significantly larger airport than SNA from an airfield prospective and would be a much better place to fly from from an operations prospective (5 runways, one over 10,000 feet).

With the slot restrictions in place, so what?


User currently offlineGreg3322 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 205 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5030 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
LGB only makes sense for people who live within a 10 mile radius of LGB, and even then, LAX or SNA are not that much further. And LGB makes no sense for people who live North of LAX.

I couldn't disagree more. Flying out of LGB is a very different experience than SNA and especially LAX. Parking is fairly inexpensive and walking distance to the terminal. The terminal is small, but it works. The longest I have ever waited for security is about 2 minutes - and that was at peak time. I think of it as a "no frills" airport. No Chilli's or Mc Donalds, no large gift shops, no jetways, but a pleasant, simple airport.

Many people have found LGB to a great airport alternative and will drive to it. The limited flights is the biggest problem. If the slots were opened up, the airport growth would be increadble.

Greg


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5030 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17):
With the slot restrictions in place, so what?

The point was that the poster called SNA a "large" airport, which it isn't. Not by PAX numbers and certainly not by airfield size.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17):
The Los Altos neighborhood, zip code 90815, is - and was in the mid 90's

Was it in the mid-1980s when the fight started? LGB itself is almost in Lakewood, which isn't a particularly expensive area.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4998 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17):The Los Altos neighborhood, zip code 90815, is - and was in the mid 90's
Was it in the mid-1980s when the fight started? LGB itself is almost in Lakewood, which isn't a particularly expensive area.

 sigh  I was born in Long Beach, and raised there and in Los Alamitos. Where my back yard was the then Naval Air Station. I spent most of my summers hanging around LGB. So I know where the fu*k LGB is, and apparently unlike you, I know that scheduled airlines DON'T fly over Lakewood on final approach. The people that have consistently objected to the increase of schedule airline service at LGB primarily live in Los Altos, Naples, and Belmont Shore - under the approach to 30. And those neighborhoods are fairly well off.

Understand now?


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4983 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):
So I know where the fu*k LGB is, and apparently unlike you

I definately know where the fu*k LGB is, given that I have been there plenty of times and was born 17 miles away.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4977 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):So I know where the fu*k LGB is, and apparently unlike you
I definately know where the fu*k LGB is, given that I have been there plenty of times and was born 17 miles away.

Well then, I suggest a re-familiarization trip, because aircraft landing on runway 30 don't fly on final over Lakewood.


User currently offlineGmcc From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4969 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):
The people that have consistently objected to the increase of schedule airline service at LGB

It actually goes as far down as Huntington Beach. I have seen people complain about Jet Blue planes making too much noise above the city. Of course this was also the city that tried to ban banner pulling aircraft because they were too noisy.


User currently offlineWilax From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 465 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4911 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
LGB only makes sense for people who live within a 10 mile radius of LGB, and even then, LAX or SNA are not that much further. And LGB makes no sense for people who live North of LAX.

I beg to differ,

I live in Inglewood, about 5 miles from LAX. I fly out of LGB whenever I possibly can. You can't beat the ease of Long Beach. The lines, traffic, and parking you have to endure at LAX would drive anyone to LGB if there were a choice. Unfortunately, there are no international flights, and chances are, you will have to make an out of the way connection even to fly domestically.


25 AADC10 : Why would WN want to fly to slot restricted LGB when they can fly to the non-restricted LAX and ONT and the only partially restricted BUR. B6 went to
26 Dacman : I grew up in and still live in Long Beach near LGB (under the approach to Rwy 30) Though my "airport haters" neighbors here in Los Altos are a vocal b
27 Hawaiian717 : I grew up on Naples and the Peninsula, and I think its a bit of a stretch to say that Naples/Belmont Shore is seriously affected by the airport. Every
28 Post contains links and images Lincoln : I'm pretty sure WN was flying 732s up until relatively recently -- certainly during the time in question....Googles...January 2005 is the date I come
29 Post contains links FATFlyer : Here are the photo maps that JetBlue prepared to show the noise contours when they were planning the LGB start. It shows only the info for takeoffs bu
30 Post contains images Halls120 : Wow. I don't see Lakewood anywhere near the noise contours. How can that be?
31 SJCRRPAX : As an outsider that flys to all of these airports on occasions, I think four of those southland airports are under utilized. LGB - 3 million pax /year
32 Post contains links AkjetBlue : Really? Thats kinda funny cuz... um, well Delta serves LGB - or rather Delta Conx - I remembered there was an announcement sometime back of service I
33 Hawaiian717 : That is, no doubt, the feeling among those who live near LAX. However, with the slot limitations at LGB and SNA, and the limited terminal capacity at
34 FlyUSCG : Well Delta, Alaska, and America West would disagree with you on that one.
35 Post contains images Steeler83 : Yeah, N1120A already informed me of when the last flight was for the WN 732. Thanks anyway though
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...
Why No AZ At IAD? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 03:45:28 by Mk777
Why No Engines At The Front? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 04:23:17 by GAIsweetGAI
Why No Props At ORD? posted Tue Sep 26 2006 08:16:38 by FlyingNanook
LAN Airlines: Why No Pics At Heathrow In Database posted Sun Sep 10 2006 12:28:18 by BA787
Why No Expansion At Stewart? (NY) posted Sat Jul 15 2006 05:12:16 by EmSeeEye
Why No B6 At ISP? posted Thu Jun 29 2006 16:57:12 by Emseeeye
Why No 757's At Sydney? posted Tue Jun 20 2006 04:19:21 by Final47
Why No FL At BNA posted Wed Jun 7 2006 23:21:32 by AirBerlin
Why No WN Expansion In CLE? posted Tue Jun 6 2006 01:19:38 by Chrisjake
Why No Jetblue At Reno? posted Wed Sep 21 2005 22:36:10 by Delta777Jet