Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JetBlue Adds LGB-SFO  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26170 posts, RR: 50
Posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4133 times:

This one should be good for all the thousands of business travellers up and down the CA corridor in addition to weekend leisure flyers.

Quote:
From the Bay to the Basin: JetBlue Adds San Francisco's Only Nonstop Service to Long Beach

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 14, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Award-winning JetBlue Airways today announces plans to launch new premium low-fare service this fall between San Francisco International Airport and its West Coast focus city in Long Beach, Calif. JetBlue's three daily flights will be the only nonstop service from SFO to Long Beach, the uncomplicated and uncrowded Los Angeles airport. Two daily flights will begin October 18 while a third daily flight will be added November 2, all aboard JetBlue's roomy 100-seat EMBRAER 190 jet.

http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/080814/148607.html


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAvi8tir From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4131 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

this is great! for us that fly out of SNA, LGB is a close alternative. And with AA and UA giving the only service SNA-SFO, prices are stupid expensive!


*Long live the Widget*
User currently offlineFlyboy7974 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 1540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4128 times:

.......... and has anybody shot ahead and looked into their fall flight schedule to see where the slots come from, I know they already announced that the PDX flight additions were coming from slots opened up by normal fall seasonal flight reductions

User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6826 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4019 times:



Quoting Flyboy7974 (Reply 2):
and has anybody shot ahead and looked into their fall flight schedule to see where the slots come from, I know they already announced that the PDX flight additions were coming from slots opened up by normal fall seasonal flight reductions

Well, the press release itself states that they will offer three daily round-trips between LGB and OAK, which is a reduction from the current schedule of five. They're also dropping one daily LGB-BOS round-trip (and a second won't operate on off-peak days) and a daily LGB-JFK round-trip.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
This one should be good for all the thousands of business travellers up and down the CA corridor

Maybe. The times are only barely competitive given the frequency offered between LAX and SFO by several other carriers. A day trip from LGB to SFO is nearly pointless given that the first northbound flight arrives SFO at 1025 while the last southbound flight departs at 1600. There's probably just enough time in between for two or three hours of meetings -- assuming no delays. The times are better the other way (SFO to LGB day trip) allowing for nearly a full day of work, but one would imagine that it would make more sense to cater to LGB-based travelers since JetBlue is far larger there than in SFO.

From the content of the press release, it also appears SFO-BOS is dropped since it's not mentioned as a destination from SFO.


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3868 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3974 times:

deleted because I looked at the schedule wrong.

[Edited 2008-08-14 10:03:44]

User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5604 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3780 times:

Looks like the west coast expansion of the 190s is continuing -- not a surprise and something I'm glad to see. Although, as Scott has nicely summarized, the LGB-SFO service seems a little iffy from a scheduling standpoint.

And yes, the SFO-BOS flight is gone this winter; it's not in the booking engine. (Edit: Looks like the flight is cut as of 9/3/08.)

bb

[Edited 2008-08-14 12:38:58]

User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2951 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3758 times:

Awesome! I will most definitely take this flight as an alternative to SNA.

User currently offlinePanAm330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2693 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3757 times:

Excellent news to see them expanding SFO! Let's keep it going, B6!

User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5604 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3740 times:

Quoting PanAm330 (Reply 7):
Excellent news to see them expanding SFO!

Well, it will be a net increase of 2 flights and a net change of no new destinations (as BOS is being replaced by LGB); this assuming there are no other scheduled cuts at SFO... (SFO has already lost SLC too.)

A big question to me is whether these trans-con cuts are seasonal or permanent; SAN-IAD is another casualty of the fuel prices and I wonder if it will return next year? (Maybe B6 doesn't know the answer yet either...)

bb

[Edited 2008-08-14 12:49:18]

User currently offlinePanAm330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2693 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3710 times:



Quoting SANFan (Reply 8):
Well, it will be a net increase of 2 flights and a net change of no new destinations (as BOS is being replaced by LGB); this assuming there are no other scheduled cuts at SFO... (SFO has already lost SLC too.)

Expansion is expansion. Plus, I'd expect BOS to come back if oil falls. They're cutting a lot of transcon capacity right now, and I'd guess at least some of it will come back (or at least we can hope, right!).


User currently offlineFlyboy7974 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 1540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3683 times:

yeah, the previous flight reductions are already being used for the new PDX nonstop flights, over on USAToday, it states, that the two flight reduction to OAK plus a flight reduction to ORD will allow for the new SFO flights

User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6791 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3394 times:

So, is B6 going to become an airline where they only have a few transcons and their coastal hubs/focus is more regional? LGB and OAK both appear to be concentrating more on the west coast.. while IAD, MCO, FLL appears to be concentrating on the east coast.. while JFK and to a less extent BOS is connecting the sides..

or am I just reading something into this?



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineJetBlueAUS From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1145 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3293 times:



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 12):
or am I just reading something into this?

From the looks of it. It looks like you have nailed it on the head.  Smile



Not all of us can be heroes, some of us can only stand on the sidewalk and clap as they go by.
User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5951 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3236 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's good to see SFO get LGB service. What was the last airline to serve the route? PSA with DC-9-30's or Alaska with 727-100's/200's?

User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3204 times:



Quoting ScottB (Reply 3):
Maybe. The times are only barely competitive given the frequency offered between LAX and SFO by several other carriers. A day trip from LGB to SFO is nearly pointless given that the first northbound flight arrives SFO at 1025 while the last southbound flight departs at 1600.

I just don't see how this flight can be successful except for bargain hunters (which all the airlines are trying to get rid of).

LAX-SFO is basically a commuter route just like LGA-DCA. People book tickets on the flights with the expectation that if a meeting runs over or they get stuck in traffic, they will stand by for the next available. The principal airlines on this route (UA and WN) know this and are generally accommodating with their standby policies and frequent departures. These flights often tend to be liberally overbooked because of the number of no shows.

If jetBlue is only going to have three flights per day and the last departure from SFO at 1600, it will be a complete bust.


User currently offlineFlyboy7974 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 1540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

I think the last time the route had service was either Alaska Airlines when they did their big buildup in the California corridor from BUR/ONT/LGB to SFO/OAK/SJC and lasted for a while, or, I think United even had flights on the route out of LGB for a short while, but might have been express service with either EM2 or BAe146 aircraft.

User currently offlineJetBlueAtJFK From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1687 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3132 times:

Well since they are reducing LGB-OAK by 2 flights, the SFO flights will probably be able to go out with decent-pretty good loads to make up for the OAK reduction. I'm sure a lot of people that flew OAK-LGB probably would have preferred SFO-LGB anyway.

B6jfk



When You Know jetBlue, You Know Better
User currently offlineHikesWithEyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 816 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2930 times:



Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 14):
or Alaska with 727-100's/200's?

AS with MD80s.



First, benzene in my Perrier, and now this!
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6826 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2827 times:



Quoting JetBlueAtJFK (Reply 17):
I'm sure a lot of people that flew OAK-LGB probably would have preferred SFO-LGB anyway.

They might have preferred SFO-LGB, but they probably would really prefer a schedule with more than three daily options each way. On a route like this which is heavy with commuters/business travelers making short or day trips, schedule flexibility is key. Not being able to accomplish a full day of work (unless you choose to stay overnight) due to the airline's schedule on a short-haul route like this is unacceptable. The current LGB-OAK schedule has an earlier first flight and a later last flight.

The noise-related slot limitations really hurt the airline's ability to offer an attractive schedule to more than two or three short-haul destinations from LGB -- but they knew about the slot limitations going in.

On a related note (since the LGB-SFO service reduces LGB-OAK frequencies by two daily), it appears that OAK takes a huge hit in JetBlue service this fall. OAK-BOS/JFK/SFO all lose a frequency, and daily departures from OAK will fall to nine (three to JFK & LGB, two to IAD, one to BOS).


User currently offlineLACA773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4067 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2739 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flyboy7974 (Reply 16):
think the last time the route had service was either Alaska Airlines when they did their big buildup in the California corridor from BUR/ONT/LGB to SFO/OAK/SJC and lasted for a while, or, I think United even had flights on the route out of LGB for a short while, but might have been express service with either EM2 or BAe146 aircraft.

In the late 80s UA flew this route with a 735. Later on it may have gone to a EM2 or 146. I took this flight once while I was in school in the Bay Area. Those were the days.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5604 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2600 times:



Quoting ScottB (Reply 19):
The noise-related slot limitations really hurt the airline's ability to offer an attractive schedule to more than two or three short-haul destinations from LGB -- but they knew about the slot limitations going in.

I've wondered about this issue in the past Scott, questioning the wisdom of making your west coast hub/prime focus city in a very tightly controlled (curfews) and slot-restricted (and a rather low number of slots at that) station such as LGB. It must be terribly frustrating for the marketing and schedule planning folks to know that for every new flight/route, something has to go! It now seems, with this west coast E-190 growth taking place, even more evident than before. I follow with interest how this problem will play out for Blue.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 19):
On a related note (since the LGB-SFO service reduces LGB-OAK frequencies by two daily), it appears that OAK takes a huge hit in JetBlue service this fall. OAK-BOS/JFK/SFO all lose a frequency, and daily departures from OAK will fall to nine (three to JFK & LGB, two to IAD, one to BOS).

And the desertion of OAK continues! There's a bit of transfer across the bay to SFO but of course OAK boasted mainly trans-cons and that's a recipe for losing flights these days...

bb


User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5951 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2584 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting ScottB (Reply 19):
OAK-BOS/JFK/SFO all lose a frequency

Since when did B6 fly OAK-SFO.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 15):
I just don't see how this flight can be successful except for bargain hunters (which all the airlines are trying to get rid of).

B6 had 5X OAK-LGB as placeholders until they realized that it was a popular route. If it's popular at OAK, why not SFO.


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6826 posts, RR: 32
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2547 times:



Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 22):
Quoting ScottB (Reply 19):
OAK-BOS/JFK/SFO all lose a frequency

Since when did B6 fly OAK-SFO.

Brain freeze. Replace "SFO" with "IAD."

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 22):
B6 had 5X OAK-LGB as placeholders until they realized that it was a popular route. If it's popular at OAK, why not SFO.

Well, it's not that popular a route. LGB-OAK yields are 15% lower than WN's LAX-OAK yields with a lot fewer seats to try to sell. B6's average fare for LGB-OAK is lower than B6's average fare on every route of similar or shorter length out of JFK -- but in general the yields on their short-hauls from LGB are poor.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 21):
I've wondered about this issue in the past Scott, questioning the wisdom of making your west coast hub/prime focus city in a very tightly controlled (curfews) and slot-restricted (and a rather low number of slots at that) station such as LGB.

Agreed. I think there really was a good reason those slots all went begging for so long. SNA is slot-controlled as well, but the Orange County demographics are just so much better. I don't think LAX would have worked, though -- simply because WN largely owns the short-haul market from there.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5604 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2531 times:



Quoting ScottB (Reply 23):
Well, it's not that popular a route. LGB-OAK yields are 15% lower than WN's LAX-OAK yields with a lot fewer seats to try to sell. B6's average fare for LGB-OAK is lower than B6's average fare on every route of similar or shorter length out of JFK -- but in general the yields on their short-hauls from LGB are poor

And of course now we are seeing some of the (short) LGB flights being d/gd to smaller a/c so not only are they gradually switching over to a different airport in the Bay Area, but they have fewer seats to fill. That's probably a good thing but from a passengers-per-slot utilization aspect for LGB, Blue is really going backwards...

Quoting ScottB (Reply 23):
Agreed. I think there really was a good reason those slots all went begging for so long. SNA is slot-controlled as well, but the Orange County demographics are just so much better. I don't think LAX would have worked, though -- simply because WN largely owns the short-haul market from there.

B6 at LAX will be something else interesting to follow; if oil prices continue to decrease, at what point will LA be attractive again?

bb


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17829 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2523 times:

I think this is going to look a lot like F9's SFOLAX attempt, or B6's own short lived SLCSFO


E pur si muove -Galileo
25 Dantiger : I flew PSA often and it still seems to me the last of the glamour airlines. The FA's were adorable in their brightly colored mini skirts. And that wa
26 Wedgetail737 : I remember PSA with the DC-9's. They were flying them along with their MD-80's. I remember seeing them flying mainly SFO-ONT or SAN. Also, PSA briefl
27 Dantiger : My friend. I think you got me on the DC-10's. They were L-1011's. I am still curious as to what routes they flew as PSA was a California inter-state
28 SFOnative : Possibly so, but hopefully not because.... B6 has 10 times more brand recognition than F9 in CA, and we are talking about flying into LGB rather than
29 Dantiger : In the "crash" section look for PSA San Diego. It was a devastating crash with all on board lost and also ground fatalities. The doomed plane is clear
30 LAXintl : Jetblue will do just fine with these new 3x LGB-SFO flights. Folks seem to forget, the B6 intra-CA/regional flying is not meant to compete against fli
31 Post contains images Wedgetail737 : Don't believe me, eh?
32 Flyboy7974 : PSA in their fleet transition did take possession of I believe 4 DC-9 aircraft that were being operated by Altair and held by Air Canada. I think from
33 ISP : Nobody has mentioned as of yet... The reason for adding LGB-SFO is to keep SFO viable. BOS-SFO is ending JFK-SFO is going from 4X to 2X, then down to
34 MarcoPoloWorld : Ok, I'll try it a different way: this has nothing to do with San Diego, and not every thread does. Now, there's an interesting theory. Really makes o
35 JetBluefan1 : Where are you getting this information? According to jetblue.com, JFK-SFO is staying at 3x. Is it really worth it to compete in such an important mar
36 Legacyins : Is this inside information? Their website still shows (3) flights out as far as 1/2009. Just asking
37 Pgtravel : I'm sure it is frustrating, but on the other hand, they get to keep competition out. It must be nice to not have to worry about other airlines coming
38 LACA773 : How are the new LGB-SJC flights doing? I hope this works out for B6! It's a nice alternative for those living in the Long Beach areas, The South Bay,
39 ScottB : As poor as the yields are at LGB, no one would want to try "sitting on top of" them. They see lower yields than WN on all their short-haul flying fro
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...
JetBlue Adds New Channels To Directv Lineup posted Wed Dec 5 2007 09:24:12 by ThirteenRight
Jetblue Pulls Into SFO posted Tue Jan 9 2007 14:36:47 by Lowecur
JetBlue Adds 2nd JFK-AUA posted Mon Oct 2 2006 00:24:41 by FA4B6
UA P.S. Drops A JFK-LAX And Adds A JFK-SFO posted Fri Jul 28 2006 06:12:15 by Swank300
JetBlue Adds 7 New Gates At JFK posted Thu Jun 1 2006 16:40:15 by Planemannyc
JetBlue - Why LGB? posted Wed Feb 23 2005 02:54:51 by Jetpixx
UA Adds SAT-SFO SAT-LAX posted Thu Jan 13 2005 21:07:14 by CMB320
How Long Before JetBlue Expands LGB? posted Sat Oct 2 2004 04:36:58 by Jetpixx
Whats Up With JetBlue At LGB posted Mon Jul 5 2004 04:31:53 by Flairport
Jetblue Adds XM Radio And FOX Video System posted Sun May 9 2004 05:52:34 by COEWR2587
Jetblue Pulls Into SFO posted Tue Jan 9 2007 14:36:47 by Lowecur
JetBlue Adds 2nd JFK-AUA posted Mon Oct 2 2006 00:24:41 by FA4B6
UA P.S. Drops A JFK-LAX And Adds A JFK-SFO posted Fri Jul 28 2006 06:12:15 by Swank300
JetBlue Adds 7 New Gates At JFK posted Thu Jun 1 2006 16:40:15 by Planemannyc
JetBlue - Why LGB? posted Wed Feb 23 2005 02:54:51 by Jetpixx
UA Adds SAT-SFO SAT-LAX posted Thu Jan 13 2005 21:07:14 by CMB320
How Long Before JetBlue Expands LGB? posted Sat Oct 2 2004 04:36:58 by Jetpixx
Whats Up With JetBlue At LGB posted Mon Jul 5 2004 04:31:53 by Flairport
Jetblue Adds XM Radio And FOX Video System posted Sun May 9 2004 05:52:34 by COEWR2587