JRodriguez136 From United States, joined May 2000, 235 posts, RR: 2 Posted (1 year 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 9519 times:
JetBlue has announced the suspension of the LAX startup that was planned for May 21, 2008. JetBlue cites that with jetfuel going on an uptrend it wouldn't make sense to open up a new city, and that it would make sense economic wise in the current status of the airline industry, mostly again, with the fuel costs. Customers that had booking on these routes from JFK and BOS will be routed to LGB.
Deltaflyertoo From United States, joined Nov 2000, 1274 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 9525 times:
This seems crazy! That would be the LAST route to hold off on. Also the fuel prices were outrageous when this was all planned and launched. This ain't something new. Something seems fishy to me.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 17688 posts, RR: 58 Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 9482 times:
Who's running this airline? LAX is years overdue under any environment. Los Angeles is not a "new city" but instead, it's finally the airport most customers want to leave from. Oh well, I won't be flying them this summer when I visit friends in the Hamptons. VX will have to do…
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Deltaflyertoo From United States, joined Nov 2000, 1274 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 9425 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3): LAX is years overdue under any environment. Los Angeles is not a "new city" but instead, it's finally the airport most customers want to leave from. Oh well, I won't be flying them this summer when I visit friends in the Hamptons. VX will have to do
LOL! SO AGREED! RIGHT!? B6 was SO anal and outspoken about having a superior new business plan and avoiding LAX when they first started like 8 years ago. And yes, hats off to them for superior marketing, advertising and PR to drive traffic out of LGB-but at the end of the day, I think 20/20, they should have launched that initial service out of LAX and they would have been just fine if not better off than today. Now they aren't really in and indeed VX just might pave the way to be the cool, hip, reliable LCC out of LAX.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 17688 posts, RR: 58 Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 9328 times:
Quoting Deltaflyertoo (Reply 5): Now they aren't really in and indeed VX just might pave the way to be the cool, hip, reliable LCC out of LAX.
Not only that, but they are going to have to share gate space or park right next to VX at LAX T6, which means B6 customers will be reminded that there is a similar option on the same route…
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
JetBlueAUS From United States, joined Apr 2006, 1060 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 9312 times:
Quoting Deltaflyertoo (Reply 5): B6 was SO anal and outspoken about having a superior new business plan and avoiding LAX when they first started like 8 years ago. And yes, hats off to them for superior marketing, advertising and PR to drive traffic out of LGB-but at the end of the day, I think 20/20, they should have launched that initial service out of LAX and they would have been just fine if not better off than today. Now they aren't really in and indeed VX just might pave the way to be the cool, hip, reliable LCC out of LAX.
LAX service has been suspended due to rising fuel prices, just like the OP explained. While them not launching LAX previously is debateable. It is definitely understandable as to why they might not want to open it now.
Not all of us can be heroes, some of us can only stand on the sidewalk and clap as they go by.
DeltaMD90 From United States, joined Apr 2008, 119 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 9311 times:
Quoting Deltaflyertoo (Reply 1): This seems crazy! That would be the LAST route to hold off on.
I'm no airline economic expert, but wouldn't this be an example of a high demand but low yield route? Maybe that was their basis. Then again, LCCs usually do better in these areas........
MKE22 From United States, joined Nov 2007, 1037 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 9259 times:
Quoting JetBlueAUS (Reply 7): While them not launching LAX previously is debateable. It is definitely understandable as to why they might not want to open it now.
Might be now or never. Gas prices are more likely going to keep going up, not down. Did they say when they are looking to start, or just suspended until further notice kind of thing?
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 17688 posts, RR: 58 Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 9234 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8): I'm no airline economic expert, but wouldn't this be an example of a high demand but low yield route? Maybe that was their basis. Then again, LCCs usually do better in these areas........
LAX-JFK is not low yield. It's not high yield either, but it has a lot of business travelers, so even with all the capacity, the flights fill up and last minute fares are high. It supports some of the only 3-class service in the USA.
It is higher yield than many of B6's leisure routes, but also, being a medium haul flight, it might have lower revenue potential per hour than flying out of AUS. So I do understand why they are not holding off on AUS expansion, but I still think LAX is a must. They should honestly considering drawing down frequency out of LGB on transcons and still launching LAX, and putting more regional flights into LGB…
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
JetBlueAUS From United States, joined Apr 2006, 1060 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 9221 times:
Quoting MKE22 (Reply 9): Might be now or never. Gas prices are more likely going to keep going up, not down. Did they say when they are looking to start, or just suspended until further notice kind of thing?
As of now, I don't think they are going to start up LAX anytime soon. Correct me if I am wrong though, anyone!
Not all of us can be heroes, some of us can only stand on the sidewalk and clap as they go by.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 11016 posts, RR: 18 Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 9154 times:
All I can imagine are the forward bookings must really have been terrible.
Does not help that everyone and their brother has been offering $300'ish JFK fares from LAX all the while their is a huge of amount of seats in the market with AA, DL, UA and VX offering nonstops in addition to all the one stop options available to get to NY plus JetBlue's own flights from BUR, LGB and ONT.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Teneriffe77 From United States, joined Jul 2006, 327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 9117 times:
While B6 may not be doing well on the west coast, they sure are doing well in the northeast. For example 10 years ago US dominated the upstate NY to NYC traffic, now B6 does and they've done a good job at lowering the prices too. Also they and FL ran US out of the NYC-Florida market. BTW one thing that amazes me about LAX is how they haven't been able to get any new terminal plans going in the last 20 years while SFO has built a completely new INTL terminal.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 11016 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 9034 times:
Quoting Teneriffe77 (Reply 13): BTW one thing that amazes me about LAX is how they haven't been able to get any new terminal plans going in the last 20 years while SFO has built a completely new INTL terminal.
I guess you have not heard of the $700mil TBIT remodel which is currently in progress, and the new midfield councourse planned for completion in 2012 for which architectural contract was just awarded last month.
For the remainder of the terminals they generally belong to carriers under decade long leaseholds, and its up to them to remodel as AA and UA have done in the last 10years.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
SANFan From United States, joined Aug 2006, 2289 posts, RR: 9 Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 8746 times:
I wonder if any other 5/21/08 expansion flights are cancelled? I reported just yesterday that the 2nd SAN-SLC flight that was announced to start May 1 didn't; it WAS showing as starting May 21 but...
This, IMHO, is a scary announcement from B6. This (LAX) seemed like a major, "must-have" start-up, following, I'm sure, lots of hard work and expense. To change their mind at the last minute is very strange. Especially, as has been suggested already, with Virgin getting deeper and deeper entrenched at LAX. (In fact, VX just announced additional frequency to the east coast from LAX.)
I don't agree with this one at all, Blue!
bb
Now available for employment in airline scheduling and planning!
JetBluefan1 From United States, joined Dec 2003, 2530 posts, RR: 19 Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 8748 times:
Something seems very fishy here. Forward bookings looked pretty strong, but maybe they were pulling too much from LGB and BUR that those bookings were being affected? I don't know, but I definitely want to know what happened. From an investor's standpoint, I understand that fuel prices are absolutely exorbitant right now, but this doesn't exactly bode well for JetBlue's image.
Not JetBlue's shining moment, I must admit.
JetBluefan1
Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12): All I can imagine are the forward bookings must really have been terrible.
That or at least the forward fares. But I agree - fuel is the same today as it was two or three weeks ago (roughly), so a "last minute" change really must have been driven by yield and/or bookings.
Quoting SANFan (Reply 16): with Virgin getting deeper and deeper entrenched at LAX. (In fact, VX just announced additional frequency to the east coast from LAX.)
Did they announce a profit to go along with that? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but rather just contrast the two decisions.
SANFan From United States, joined Aug 2006, 2289 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 8609 times:
I've got to wonder about the BUR-IAD flights due to start 5/21... (I realize they were just transferred from LGB, but still.)
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 18): Did they announce a profit to go along with that? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but rather just contrast the two decisions.
No they didn't but then I agree with you, when has profit had anything to do with schedule enhancements by Virgin? All I'm saying is VX is increasing presence at LAX and that can't be a good thing for Blue if and when they figure it's the RIGHT time to start the LA routes.
bb
Now available for employment in airline scheduling and planning!
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2000 posts, RR: 21 Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 8567 times:
Quoting SANFan (Reply 19): All I'm saying is VX is increasing presence at LAX and that can't be a good thing for Blue if and when they figure it's the RIGHT time to start the LA routes.
I can't disagree there. VX could very well be B6's worst nightmare, particularly if VX doesn't mind bleeding money for a while. Or, at the very least, hasn't noticed yet. I definitely thought LAX was a logical addition for JetBlue, but it seems they waited too long to do it. Too bad, but they'll just have to deal with the consequences.
Hopefully, the consequences will be a higher net profit.
JetBlueAUS From United States, joined Apr 2006, 1060 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 8551 times:
Quoting SANFan (Reply 19): I've got to wonder about the BUR-IAD flights due to start 5/21... (I realize they were just transferred from LGB, but still.)
So far, I've heard the BUR-IAD flights are filling up decent. Though, they aren't anything special.
Not all of us can be heroes, some of us can only stand on the sidewalk and clap as they go by.
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2000 posts, RR: 21 Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 8525 times:
Did anyone notice that on their current route map it shows a "coming soon" line from Boston to what would appear to be Alaska? Maybe it's always been there and I just never noticed, or maybe when they were dragging the LAX lines away they forgot to get rid of it. I hope that plane never takes off from BOS, because it'll never land.
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2000 posts, RR: 21 Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 7615 times:
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 22): Did anyone notice that on their current route map it shows a "coming soon" line from Boston to what would appear to be Alaska? Maybe it's always been there and I just never noticed, or maybe when they were dragging the LAX lines away they forgot to get rid of it. I hope that plane never takes off from BOS, because it'll never land.
It also shows it for JFK, so I'm guessing that it was the two LAX lines that are just off in neverland until they can clean up the route map.
-Dave
Das macht nicht. Ich habe kein heft mit.
26 LH423: Well, maybe this can accelerate the plans for VX to enter the BOS market. The rumours have been flying about ORD, BOS, and MIA for 2008 yet nothing ha
27 BOStonsox: Hmm. Maybe they were nervous about starting LAX service after the FIRST time they landed there? New surprise: they are going to start service to ANC!
28 Wjcandee: They've seen the advance bookings. They must not be pretty.
29 Ikramerica: which is why I suggested they cut down on LGB transcon frequency, not dump LAX. If LAX was strong and LGB took a hit, it only proves that despite all
30 Wjcandee: Or Spirit or Airtran. (Edit: Duh, Spirit already flies this nonstop, and routinely sells out the Big Front Seat. Why not? $250-350 for that seat isn'
31 B6MoneyGuyJFK: I think this is a prudent move. I know LAX and LGB are the same "City", but they would be 2 different stations. Connecting the dots without the cost
32 LACA773: I can understand why they would postpone the opening of LAX considering the state of fuel prices and the competition out of LAX. VX is increasing thei
33 DiscoverCSG: Note to B6: Don't get your nosegear bent out of shape. Fly to LAX.
34 Commavia: This is precisely the conclusion AA came to back in 2002-2003. Now, granted, AA's costs never allowed them to offer competitive fares against JetBlue
35 JetMARC: jetBlue would also be competing with themselves outta LGB. This move makes plenty of sense as it cost over $1 million to open a new station and takes
36 AAJFKSJUBKLYN: There is a certain charm/charisma/history in flying JFK-LAX on AA or even UA. I genuinely would fly to LAX over LGB. I simply do not like LGB and if
37 EXAAUADL: Why they already serve airports in the LA area, it is like B6 doesnt serve LA. Why fly a 3000 miels route agaisnt entrenched competitors, incurr new
38 Richierich: Which made it all the more surprising, to me, when they announced LAX.... I don't know that I agree with this at all. From all that I have heard, LGB
39 MaverickM11: VX is seeing the same pressures on transcons as B6 is--high costs and low fares, especially in new markets. And I believe VX has significantly higher
40 LAXintl: See here is the problem - yes JetBlue flies to the LA metro area, and has a done a good job of circling the basin with service at LGB, BUR and ONT, ho
41 Richierich: Yes, after making a big stink about flying JFK-ONT, JFK-SAN, JFK-LGB, etc. Then their JFK-LAX flights were severely cut - if you don't believe me loo
42 Richierich: The decision to cancel LAX surprises me almost as much as the decision by B6 to go there in the first place. The timing is very unusual, I have to ag
43 PITIngres: Surely you jest. From one nasty, old, overcrowded, broken-down airport to another, on a faceless and cheerless legacy? I fear that the appeal escapes
44 Commavia: Yep, that was a stupid waste of resources trying to go up against JetBlue in those markets. Incorrect. AA's JFK-LAX schedule has stayed relatively st
45 AS739X: LAX has a major project remodelling Bradley Terminal as we speak. ASSFO
46 ScottB: The thing is, LAX is really where people want to arrive and depart. In the most recent quarter for which numbers are available, the lowest-fare carri
47 Ikramerica: Which is what I was trying to say earlier (but didn't have data, just years of experience). JFK-LAX is NOT low yield. It has lots of competition, but
48 Richierich: This I can't deny. The timing is very odd. My bad - I should have checked aa.com... I thought there were some 757s sprinkled in there. The last time
49 Surfrider1978: Good news to me. LAX is an overcrowded dump that would do nothing but let B6 break even. Too much competition on those routes as well. I live in south
50 Jetsetsteve: Another wounderful move made by Mr. Martin St.George this guy needs to get a clue. Just in case anyone is woundering who Martin is. He is the VP of Pl
51 BOStonsox: I wonder why they moved the flights back to LGB? Couldn't they have moved them to BUR? I guess that they would need time to advertise the new BOS rout
52 Richierich: Wounderful? Before you start calling people out on here, you best make sure your spelling and grammar are up to par. Now care to elaborate on why it
53 AAJFKSJUBKLYN: Last time I looked AA's terminal was remodeled and looks pretty darn good...when compared to the others at LAX..Its actually architecturally nice, bu
55 Ikramerica: T4 is really nice, remodeled within the last 10 years, but overcrowded when QF has multiple 744s nearing departure. AA's JFK terminal is brand spanki
56 BOStonsox: Why would they file? They're doing better than most other airlines.
57 Ikramerica: No, they aren't. They just aren't doing as bad as the ones that filed.
58 Richierich: Not really sure how you are drawing that conclusion. They had a decent Q1 (a $8M loss, compared to losses many times that for other airlines) and the
59 LACA773: When B6 first started they chose to fly into ONT, LGB, SJC, OAK etc, as these were smaller less delay prone airports. They had lower fees, and along w
60 Travelin man: As an FYI it is far faster to get to downtown Los Angeles from BUR than from LAX. Also, the San Fernando Valley (home to most of the large studios) I
61 AAJFKSJUBKLYN: Exactly. I do this route 8-10 times a year, and I would go no other way. Double Aisle 767, with three classes, great business class. Its the way to g
62 PITIngres: Well, that would be incorrect; however, I did a little counting-on-fingers and realized that the last time was about 8 years ago. Yikes. Even with br
63 Commavia: That is not what AA found. AA found that indeed it was a matter of "want," not need. AA offered customers a choice of two other L.A. area airports an
64 Surfrider1978: Funny from someone in Austin, TX who has no concept of what real traffic is like especially in LA. People in the LA area will travel to the other out
65 AAJFKSJUBKLYN: An interesting point about travel to LAX from the OC. I was in OC, Huntington Beach to be specific. Relatives live off Atlanta, and Brookhurst. I mad
66 Travelin man: AA serves LAX, ONT, SNA, and BUR (and until recently served LGB as well). Clearly AA realizes that offering service to a variety of LA airports is cr
67 MKE22: Found this. http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2008/05/costly_fuel_cou.html Suspended indefinatley sound familiar? ( cough.. FL and LAS cough.. )
68 Commavia: I have spent quite a bit of my life in L.A. - my mother lives there. I understand what the 405 can be like, but it still doesn't change the reality t
69 MAH4546: Latest I've heard from good sources is that Boston and Chicago are on the backburner again for 2009, and now the goal is to try to get Miami (LAX/SFO
70 B6fll: "No, they aren't. They just aren't doing as bad as the ones that filed". If I not mistaken arent you a big fan of VX? If thats the case you of all pe
71 Travelin man: The fact that AA has decided to concentrate its JFK service at LAX has no bearing on whether or not B6 can be successful without serving that airport
72 C150Driver: I wonder how WN feels about this and if this affects them in anyway?
73 Richierich: I think a nicer way of saying this is that AA is the incumbent and they have a long established route in JFK-LAX. To say that this is the "only" way
74 Commavia: Precisely, which is why I said that AA's customers prefer LAX. As for the market overall - everyone has the place - including JetBlue at Burbank, Lon
75 Ikramerica: The only airlines I know of other than B6 who recently serves/served the LA area but not LAX are/were AQ and XJet branded. B6 will never win over the
76 LAXintl: Agreed. There is no disputing B6 has done well to with basically tip toeing around the LA basin by avoiding LAX to date, however the bulk of areas bu
77 Travelin man: "Winning over minds" isn't something that B6 is looking to do. They want to fill planes. They obviously don't feel that they can do that profitably a
78 Surfrider1978: Times are different now and airlines operate differently than they ever have. More and more you will see transcons from these airports. Obviously it
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 2000, 235 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 24542 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
