JRodriguez136 From United States, joined May 2000, 227 posts, RR: 1 Posted (2 months 22 hours ago) and read 8814 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, 1237 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (2 months 22 hours ago) and read 8820 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, 14534 posts, RR: 41 Reply 3, posted (2 months 22 hours ago) and read 8777 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, 1237 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (2 months 22 hours ago) and read 8720 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, 14534 posts, RR: 41 Reply 6, posted (2 months 22 hours ago) and read 8623 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, 964 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (2 months 22 hours ago) and read 8607 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, 10 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 months 22 hours ago) and read 8606 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, 707 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 months 22 hours ago) and read 8554 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, 14534 posts, RR: 41 Reply 10, posted (2 months 22 hours ago) and read 8529 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, 964 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (2 months 21 hours ago) and read 8516 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, 7896 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (2 months 21 hours ago) and read 8449 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, 242 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 months 21 hours ago) and read 8412 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, 7896 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (2 months 21 hours ago) and read 8329 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, 1716 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (2 months 20 hours ago) and read 8041 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, 2405 posts, RR: 11 Reply 17, posted (2 months 20 hours ago) and read 8043 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.
-Dave
I hanker for a hunka, a slab or slice or chunka, I hanker for a hunka cheese
SANFan From United States, joined Aug 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (2 months 20 hours ago) and read 7904 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!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 2000, 227 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 21844 posts,