GoBlue From Canada, joined Jun 2006, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4349 times:
So if Jetblue has a gate and facilities at ORD, other then landing slots are there any other factors holding B6 back from growing. I knwo the landing slots are hotly contested, and are all allocated, but is there even gate space if B6 were to want to increase operations in a few years?
Competition and route performance will be the true evaluation factor in expansion and such, but surely there are more obstacles in the way. Other then AA and UA not wanting there routes competed on!
ChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1626 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4320 times:
Quoting GoBlue (Reply 4): So if Jetblue has a gate and facilities at ORD, other then landing slots are there any other factors holding B6 back from growing. I know the landing slots are hotly contested, and are all allocated, but is there even gate space if B6 were to want to increase operations in a few years?
LGB and JFK are offered by B6 just to have a small presence in CHI to cater to their customer base in NY and around LGB. Essentially, this is what it's about. B6 shouldn't and probably does not want to do any more than that in CHI. I can't hardly speak for the powers that be at B6, but it seems obvious to me.
So, to answer your question, gates are not available (or B6 would have more) and probably will not be available for B6 future expansion nor should B6 want additional gates.
I would be surprised if these routes produce any more than break even results, matter-of-fact, I would be surprised at break even.
Scaledesigns From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4206 times:
I cant see B6 doing that well at ORD.Most AA pax going to JFK connect
to AA international flights.Business travelers on AA/UA like LGA better.
This entry into the Chicago ORD market is more talk than substance.
AA and UA will atleast match or beat the B6 fares.Also what about the B6 interline agreement or lack of.B6 belongs at MDW,not ORD.
JetBlueAtJFK From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1687 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4064 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 10): Chicago-Florida is a bloodbath. Why would they want to get involved?
Yea its already full with WN, NK, FL, UA, AA, etc on Chicago-Florida routes. The NYC and LA to ORD routes make sense because its going after business and leisure travelers which is what they want to start aiming for, business and leisure crowds. Florida is to crowded from ORD/MDW and it would be tough to break into that.
SilentObserver From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3842 times:
US/HP has been RONing 4 aircraft, on F6, F8, F10 and E8. E6 was given back to CO and F6 is borrowed from UX for RON use (For US east metal). E8 is not really RON, because they bring a plane in at like 2:30am and send it back to PHX at 5am, then get a flight from LAS at 5:30am an back out at 8:30am. They get great utilization on the HP side of the operation. 6 PHX/4LAS all to E8
6 CLT/5PHL/4PIT to F9-F10 so not as good on the US side. I am not sure why they need 4 gates, they are so efficant.
NW has dropped to 4 RONs and has given up E7 to US/HP although I have never seens an aircraft on the gate even though their logo is on the bridge now. I think there was talk of E8 going to CO and E4 going to B6, because its on the otherside of the tug tunnel under the concourse. This would give CO uninterupted gates from E6-E14 (Evens).