YOW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5481 times:
Does anyone think BUR could attract a couple of new airlines or at the very least new routes within the next couple of years?
What about some of these as new airlines:
CO/CoEx to IAH?
F9 to DEN?
NW to MSP?
Hawaiian to HNL?...I know not likely, given Aloha pulled out last year.
Skybus to CMH if they ever get off the ground?
Virgin America to SFO again if they ever get off the ground?
Any others out there?
What about existing carriers opening new routes?
With the HP/US merger, do you think BUR-PHL is doable say maybe as a red-eye?
B6 to IAD?
WN serving something east of PHX, like DEN, HOU or MDW?
AA or UA to ORD?
Coronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5417 times:
If B6 can get more slots at ORD, I'd like to see them do BUR-ORD.
Also, I'd like to see TZ/WN direct-thru flights from BUR-MDW-LGA on a frequent schedule throughout the day. Kind of a renaissance route from the 1950's but without the DC-6's. I think this would be a cash cow.
Flyboy7974 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 1540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5317 times:
where do you see the EM2 to SFO? Haven't seen that before unless a UA sub for a SkyWest CRj.
As mentioned above, a couple of years ago there was an investment group that was looking to put together a small commuter carrier offering routes within CA that had been previously dumped from other carriers. Two routes were BUR-SAN and BUR-FAT which SkyWest served for quite sometime before eliminating the SWM and flying nothing smaller than the 30 pax EM2. BUR-SAN alone had quite a higher yield for the low O&D carried. At one point, besides SkyWest, WestAir flying as United Express and StatesWest before their US Airways Express flying both offered flights on the BUR-SAN route with J31 and SD360 a/c respectively. My dad would fly BUR-SAN twice weekly on bi-monthly rotations with other company employees as his company filled government contracts in the SAN area. He always mentioned that the same faces were always on the flight, and that on his TUES/THURS flights, he got to know 2 gentlemen that were always already on the a/c since the flight originated in FAT before its intermediate stop in BUR enroute to SAN. Well, between mergers and fleet consolidations, eventually routes such as these were eliminated as commuter carriers solely focused on hub operations for their mainline counterparts. Just within CA, other routes that suffered elimination that previously saw commuter ops were MRY-SNA, MRY-SAN, FAT-SAN, SBA-SAN, FAT-ONT, FAT-SNA, SBA-SMF, and some thinner services as well from southern California into the Laughlin/Bullhead area. While the market right now and for quite a very long time will be overly saturated with 19 pax aircraft such as the J31 and B1900, smaller carriers just cannot feasibly operate a 19 pax aircraft solely and make profits. FAA regulations within the past few years effecting 19 pax a/c ops have just made this small of an aircraft not economical much longer. Those that have lasted, Mesa (and subsidiaries) and Great Lakes, battle head to head now for EAS contracts to simply offset the cost of operating the smaller a/c. Big Sky, another carrier offering commuter flights, lately has been making news as they struggle to survive in today's market. Station closures and route announcements and then quickly followed by discontinuations seem to become more frequent at Big Sky as of late. I think out of MKE it appears that Midwest Connect also has started to pull some B1900 flying recently, and all the mention is a new regional contract soon coming out of MKE for Midwest Airlines. Not too sure how Corporate Airlines is making it recently since press releases aren't too frequent from the AA Connection operator, and the same with CommutAir and their B1900 ops that previously were ramped up heavily first in ALB as CoExpress, then quickly reduced as flights were shifted to CLE once a contract was finished there, but since that time, CommutAir seems to be focusing more on their newer Saab340 fleet and schedules. Down south, Gulfstream appears to have their niche down with their B1900 and EM2 flying, balancing the combination of vacation/tourist hot spots through Bahamian waters and heavily traveled Floridian routes.
Well anyways, back to topic, while attempt made, I think the chance of the commuter carrier I mentioned ever starting just might not be logistical as most 19 pax carrier ops are dwindling. As for any larger carriers finding BUR suitable for new service, I would hope that Virgin America would have their eyes on BUR. I can't see Frontier announcing BUR as thier focus lately has been with a heavy Mexico emphasis and buildup. NWA just closed ONT and wasn't there more talk about reductions out west and thining some other routes, so not likely to BUR on their scope. CoEx has flights to BFL/PSP/ONT and mainline CO serves ONT/LAX/SNA, I don't think BUR is foreseeable as we approach the change in contract with ExpressJet fleet reduction and the Chautauqua buildup. I would love to see maybe a once daily SunCountry B737 to MSP, or even an Allegiant MD-80 flying up to BLI, but I am sure that there are many more opportunities knocking on their doors before we see carriers like these landing in BUR.
Very doubtful. NWA presence has been reduced in the West. ONT, PSP, RNO have all been closed in recent years, while services at other Western cities such as LAX have been reduced overall.
Quoting YOW (Thread starter): Hawaiian to HNL?...I know not likely, given Aloha pulled out last year.
Very unlikely. BUR is not conducive to wide body ops from a passenger handling point of view. Wide bodies cannot be parked at the terminals, and must be remotely parked. Also not sure of runway performance issues which might limit payload potential. In addition remember HA used to serve ONT also which was discounted for them to focus on LAX.
I doubt it. If they will serve LA, I'd say its LAX, or possible as a LCC to ONT.
Quoting YOW (Thread starter): Virgin America to SFO again if they ever get off the ground?
LA basin airport will be LAX. They are pretty far along with setting up required agreements and have also hired a few staff members.
Quoting YOW (Thread starter): With the HP/US merger, do you think BUR-PHL is doable say maybe as a red-eye?
The overall presence of US at BUR is actually pretty limited, with only 5 PHX flights and 1 LAS flight of which two are not even mainline.
In addition US-East previously pulled out from SNA, leaving all LA area to East Coast services focused at LAX.
Goldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6126 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5292 times:
Quoting Flyboy7974 (Reply 5): where do you see the EM2 to SFO? Haven't seen that before unless a UA sub for a SkyWest CRj.
Like I said, every so often, which does not mean it's scheduled NOW. UA will schedule a flight or two per week using the EMB-120 as filler when they feel it's warranted. This is NOT an extra section, but a regular scheduled flight.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
AAflyguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 363 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5088 times:
NW continues to serve MSP-PSP seasonally, though the frequency in high-season has been reduced to once daily from twice daily in previous years. ONT & RNO were cut entirely, but PSP remained intact. The market is a solid performer for NW, at least in the Oct-May timeframe, so I'm glad it remained in the schedule while service at those other larger (and nearby - ONT) airports was shuddered. A bit of a testament to the viability of PSP service, I think.
Stirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5020 times:
Big issue at Bob Hope is terminal space.
Growth will be hard to impossible, until all the NIMBYs die off and a new terminal is built north of the 8/26 along Hollywood Way.
I am surprised the FAA has not intervened and DEMANDED a new terminal be built, since a slight error in push back could mean getting in the way of landing/taking off airliner....Dangerous to say the least.
I don't want to say it is inevitable, but with the growth in the LA region going north, Santa Clarita, etc, BUR is the closest commercial airport. Recently on a Tuesday, at about 3 in the afternoon, it took me 90 minutes to get from I405/Sherman Way (due west of BUR) to I405/Rosecrans (just a couple exits south of LAX).
How long will the residents allow this to go on?
Burbank is only going to grow in demand.....guaranteed.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5006 times:
How much space is actually available at BUR? There are not very many "gates" and limited operating hours, which limits long haul flights. Short haul would have to often have to compete with WN, which few airlines care to do.
SJCRRPAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5001 times:
Quoting Stirling (Reply 11): I am surprised the FAA has not intervened and DEMANDED a new terminal be built, since a slight error in push back could mean getting in the way of landing/taking off airliner....Dangerous to say the least.
I've heard one of the problems at BUR is if they do any remodel, it will require the terminal to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch. Always surprizes me that there can be such a lazy airport not so far from LAX. I bet the locals (as in under the flight path) like it that way.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26531 posts, RR: 50
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4972 times:
Quoting SJCRRPAX (Reply 13): I've heard one of the problems at BUR is if they do any remodel, it will require the terminal to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch. Always surprizes me that there can be such a lazy airport not so far from LAX. I bet the locals (as in under the flight path) like it that way.
Facility expansion is currently impossible.
Until 2002 or so the airport authority had been working on plans for the construction of a beautiful Spanish style terminal with near 20 gates on land donated by Lockheed on the Eastern side of the airport.
Subsequent to this residents in several nearby communities past a measure which would bar their cities from approving any renovations or expansion of facilities at the airport without it first coming to a public vote and requiring a near impossible 2/3 majority approval. In addition no such vote could take place for atleast the first 10 years following the passage of the initial measure.
Stirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4899 times:
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 14): Until 2002 or so the airport authority had been working on plans for the construction of a beautiful Spanish style terminal with near 20 gates on land donated by Lockheed on the Eastern side of the airport.
I was looking for photos of that to include in my post, but to no luck...do have a link you know of? It really was a signature facility...one that screams "You are now in Southern California!"
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 14): Subsequent to this residents in several nearby communities past a measure which would bar their cities from approving any renovations or expansion of facilities at the airport without it first coming to a public vote and requiring a near impossible 2/3 majority approval. In addition no such vote could take place for atleast the first 10 years following the passage of the initial measure.
And Southern California accuses Northern California of being paralyzed by special interests. I tell you what, if they don't wise up, the entire state is going to "Special Interest" itself out of existence.....
A telling statistic is passenger enplanements of the nation's 3 largest metro areas; New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
NYC with 3 major airports produced 49.6 million passengers.
Chicago with 2 airports produced 45.0 million passengers.
Los Angeles, with 5 major airports.....41.9 million.
The breakdown in the Los Angeles region
Los Angeles should generate as much, if not more passengers than New York, maybe not Chicago since it is major base for 3 large airlines....but to almost 8 million short of NYC, with 2 more airports?
Capacity is out of whack with the demand.
The problem could be addressed somewhat by fixing BUR....getting it up to 4 or 5 million enplanements a year would certainly take a good part of the strain borne by LAX.
LGB samestory, going from 1.5 million to 2.5, or even just an even 2 million would help the region in a big way. But then, the issue of the modular buildings for boarding areas and space would need to be addressed, but nowhere near being an impossibility.
SNA, well, there isn't much that can be done seeing as the facility is bound by law to a certain level, and even without such, there are only so many pax they could handle. BUR and LGB, close to center of population are not pulling their weight and are in fact bringing the area down.
Quoting SJCRRPAX (Reply 13): it will require the terminal to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch.
Or the preferred means, building an entirely new facility with the entrance being off of San Fernando Blvd, parallel to runways 15/33, as opposed to the current alignment with 08/26 off of Hollywood Way and Empire.
The FAA has thrown its weight around before, like in forcing Dallas and Fort Worth to build DFW....why can't they trump the selfish interests of the few hundred folks effected by the noise. Besides, the government has programs to sound-proof your home, so it's not like your house is RIGHT on the runway....
YOW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4847 times:
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 14): In addition, BUR currently has a non enforceable voluntary noise curfew, however the city has begun working on ways to make this a hard closure based on demands from residents.
Wow that would certainly change the landscape if a complete nighttime ban were to be introduced. Ameriflight's ops would pretty much disappear from BUR. I was aware of the voluntary curfew, which I believe is from 2200 to 0700.
A hard curfew would pretty much eliminate the opportunity for more red-eye services to the east coast. B6 do currently have an early red-eye departing BUR at 2100 and arriving in JFK really early at 0500. But if anyone wanted to depart at 2200 or 2300 for a 0600 or 0700 east coast arrival, this won't be possible with a real curfew in place.