Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JetBlue's JFK-LAX Outflies JFK-LGB  
User currently offlineJBAirwaysFan From United States of America, joined May 2009, 913 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10368 times:

So I was looking on jetBlue.com today and I saw that they fly JFK-LGB (2x) half as much as JFK-LAX (4x). Is jetBlue looking to shift their LGB Hub/Focus City to LAX? Wouldn't that put jetBlue head to head with competitive legacies that may eat them alive?


In Loving Memory of Casey Edward Falconer; May 16, 1992-May 9, 2012
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinebeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10210 times:

Well just remember that they are working together with American now so it would be easier for pax to connect with the international flights.

User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9385 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10164 times:

JetBlue has shifted away from operating mostly transcons out of its western cities. It has shifted to local shorter traffic. Destinations like the SFO, SMF, OAK, PDX, SEA, LAS & AUS take most of the LGB slots.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineNASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1286 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10056 times:

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 1):
Well just remember that they are working together with American

You got all that from an interline agreement?

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 2):

True. Since LGB is so slot-restricted, my opinion is that it's better for B6 to concentrate some of its transcon activity to a less restricted airport, and focus its short-haul West-Coast network from LGB.



Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
User currently onlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2797 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9981 times:

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Thread starter):
So I was looking on jetBlue.com today and I saw that they fly JFK-LGB (2x) half as much as JFK-LAX (4x)

B6 has always relied on a multi-airport strategy when serving (greater) LA from New York (JFK). B6 started off avoiding the highly competitive JFK-LAX route altogether, instead serving 3 convenient alternate airports from JFK: BUR, ONT, and LGB. Today they serve JFK-LGB 2x daily, JFK-BUR 3x daily, and JFK-LAX 4x daily for a total of 9x daily NYC-LA area flights (JFK-ONT has since been dropped) that [together] compete effectively against the robust schedules offered by AA, DL, UA, and VX on the JFK-LAX route. The JFK-BUR flights are extremely popular with the Hollywood/entertainment crowd, and I imagine the LGB flights are popular for East Coast folks visiting Disneyland, Orange County, etc. while JFK-LAX is popular for obvious reasons...

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Thread starter):
Is jetBlue looking to shift their LGB Hub/Focus City to LAX?

No. B6 threatened to move the operation up to LAX when LGB was dragging its feet with the new terminal project, but the airport has since committed to the beautiful new terminal and B6 appears to not just be fully committed to its LGB hub but actively seeking to expand it should any slots become available. However, since all mainline slots at LGB are currently spoken for and the strict slot scheme is unlikely to change anytime soon, it is possible B6 could expand from LAX (not necessarily at LGB's expense) in order to grow in Southern California.

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Thread starter):
Wouldn't that put jetBlue head to head with competitive legacies that may eat them alive?

B6 doesn't fear the legacies, the legacies fear B6. The real issue with going into LAX would be going up against WN on short hauls to SLC/LAS/OAK/SFO/SMF, AS on the Pacific NW runs, and VX on the transcons to BOS/JFK/IAD/FLL. At LGB they are a victim of their own success (no way to expand) but also shielded from any new direct competition.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24364 posts, RR: 47
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9632 times:

Well JetBlue will continue building their LAX presence from indications they have made including even possible international flying and also reviewing other terminal options for additional space.

Their LAX transcon flying has out performed LGB revenue and load factor since launch.

Average Fare
JFK-
LAX: $221.02
LGB: $207.91

Load Factor:
JFK-
LAX: 90%
LGB: 88%
source: DOT

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 4):
The JFK-BUR flights are extremely popular with the Hollywood/entertainment crowd,

So you say.

You realize the BUR flights are much more geared for the Valley bedroom community than the Hollywood crowd which gravitates over the hills to LAX and a group Virgin America has been able to exploit better then anything JetBlue has done.

B6 came in to BUR thinking they might manage some entertainment business particularly Disney, but quickly realized this was not to be and had to ditch some BUR flying when folks stuck with their UA corporate contracts.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32216 posts, RR: 72
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9560 times:

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 4):
The JFK-BUR flights are extremely popular with the Hollywood/entertainment crowd,

When I worked at a studio in the Burbank area, we still flew out of LAX unless flying to the Bay Area (and that was actually corporate policy: Southwest out of BUR if going to the Bay Area; American out of LAX if going elsewhere).

Burbank isn't popular with the Hollywood crowd because it lacks lounges, non-stops and first class. And most of the traveling Hollywood crowd is in Beverly Hills/Century City.



a.
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3182 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6947 times:

I think the goal is to get shorter regional flights out of LGB and the longer ones out of LAX. BOS is down to one a day to LGB.

When fuel spiked, B6 got transcon-shy. With the exception of flights from JFK to the west coast, a lot of transcons were dropped or reduced for shorter segments.

I think this also has to do with LH and other interline agreements with foreign carriers they are seeking. They fly into JFK and LAX . . . that's where B6 has to be.


User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3945 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4388 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 6):
Burbank isn't popular with the Hollywood crowd because it lacks lounges, non-stops and first class. And most of the traveling Hollywood crowd is in Beverly Hills/Century City.

Actually, Mark, a big portion of them live in the Valley.
I always wondered if we would see AA add a BUR-JFK nonstop if only for the studios, but this has never happened.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32216 posts, RR: 72
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4353 times:

Quoting laca773 (Reply 8):
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 6):
Burbank isn't popular with the Hollywood crowd because it lacks lounges, non-stops and first class. And most of the traveling Hollywood crowd is in Beverly Hills/Century City.

Actually, Mark, a big portion of them live in the Valley.

I realize a big portion of us live in the Valley. And we still use LAX, even if we live in the Valley.



a.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24364 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4252 times:

3-4 years ago United seriously looked at doing a p.s. flight from both BUR and SNA however after lots of study they just could not make the projections work, and did not feel it was worth messing with the very successful LAX operation.

Who knows maybe one day things will change, however BUR has neither been historically nor today is a elite market, quite the opposite being more a middle income average Joe location with almost 3/4 of the flights at the airport not even offering F-class. Of all the satellite airports SNA has been considered the more premium SoCal regional airport.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8869 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4132 times:

Quoting laca773 (Reply 8):

Actually, Mark, a big portion of them live in the Valley.

They might live in the Valley, but they are not using the BUR-JFK flight for business travel. They might be hopping on it to go to the East Coast on vacation, but as noted the business travel still goes out of LAX.


User currently offlineN623JB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3706 times:

Is it possible of making another city in California a "Focus City"?


Bring JetBlue To Mexico City! (TLC and/or MEX would be great)
User currently onlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2797 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3678 times:

Quoting N623JB (Reply 12):
Is it possible of making another city in California a "Focus City"?

Anything is possible, but all of B6's efforts to expand from California stations other than LGB and SFO have been futile, to say the least (the jury is still out on LAX, which B6 just doubled this year - will be interesting to see how they do with that).

Now, remember that B6 did have a second California "focus city" for many years: OAK. In fact, when they began their ill-fated ATL services, they served that market from just its West Coast gateways - LGB and OAK. Even though OAK would come up in the big bold font on the route map (like JFK, LGB, BOS, MCO, and FLL do today) I'd say it was more a symbolic title than anything because OAK never really had anything other than service to BOS, JFK, IAD, FLL, and LGB (efforts to serve the likes of ATL and SAN were very short lived). OAK-FLL was, not surprisingly, cut when the fuel prices skyrocketed, and now BOS-OAK is going to end in September. I wouldn't be surprised to see OAK left with just LGB and JFK by next year.

OAK isn't the only unsuccessful attempt by B6 to grow in California. They also tried expanding from BUR - twice - as well as SAN, but never was able to make anything but the core routes work. SJC couldn't even support flights to LGB, SMF has barely hung on to its JFK flights, and ONT is almost certainly gone for good. So, if - and that's a big if - they go for a second focus city, it will almost certainly be SFO, and possibly LAX if they do start going int'l from there.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24364 posts, RR: 47
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3449 times:

On Friday I received a note that JetBlue has proposed relocating to T-3 in order to have additional space.

[Edited 2010-07-10 21:36:49]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineflyingcat From United States of America, joined May 2007, 527 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3354 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
On Friday I received a note that JetBlue has proposed relocating to T-3 in order to have additional space.

Old news, B6 has to move to T3 to accommodate AS moving into T6. FL is also moving.

As for B6 expanding in LAX I would not hold my breath. The summer peak is nearly over and B6 has never expanded in huge waves more of a steady progression.

Besides the move will be at least a year from now. As soon as the CO/UA merger is clear than CO can move out and the renovations can occur for an AS move in. The renovations alone will take time.


User currently offlineIcebird757 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 657 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3228 times:

I am glad to see 2 long hauls leave LGB. It's easier on my back now that there is a SEA and PDX flight added rather than 2 long hauls.


LGB....where you can watch the grass grow because the traffic is so slow.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24364 posts, RR: 47
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

Quoting flyingcat (Reply 15):
Old news, B6 has to move to T3 to accommodate AS moving into T6. FL is also moving.

No not old news. They were discussing a move to T-2 also, and now have settled on T-3 instead.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently onlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5830 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2972 times:

Quoting flyingcat (Reply 15):
As soon as the CO/UA merger is clear than CO can move out and the renovations can occur for an AS move in.

Why would CO move out of T6 it's right next to the UA operation...

AS doesn't have that large of an operation at LAX anymore where they are going to need access to both the common use gates and CO gates.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently onlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2797 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2849 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
JetBlue has proposed relocating to T-3 in order to have additional space.

That must mean they are considering additional expansion out of LAX! Question is, where else would they want to fly? LAX-MCO and LAX-FLL are highly competitive routes, though B6 could offer some great onward connections (NAS, CUN, SJU, SJO, etc.) if timed properly. I daresay HPN-LAX would do very well, but I doubt the A320 could get off those short runways and make it all the way West reliably enough. LAX-AUS also comes to mind as a possibility, and of course LAX-DCA if B6 could get the authority to fly it.

Quoting flyingcat (Reply 15):
B6 has to move to T3 to accommodate AS moving into T6. FL is also moving.

If AS moves to T6, then all of the small tenants (B6, FL, NK, G4, F9) would probably have to move. I highly doubt UA, CO, or even DL would be willing to give up any of their precious gate space as the 3 (soon to be 2) carriers continue to expand from LAX.

Quoting flyingcat (Reply 15):
As soon as the CO/UA merger is clear than CO can move out and the renovations can occur for an AS move in.

Where would CO go? After UA surrendered most of its T6 gates to the airport (who then gave them to the small domestic tenants I mentioned earlier) T7 and T8 haven't exactly been underutilized. If anything, the new airline needs as many gates as it can get - CO's massive Latin American network (Mexico and Central America in particular) needs to be linked to the LAX hub, which means LAX could see a fairly big expansion when the merger goes through.

Quoting United1 (Reply 18):
Why would CO move out of T6 it's right next to the UA operation...

Exactly. CO's gates are actually more accessible to folks coming over from T7/T8 than the ones UA uses at the very end of T6!

Quoting United1 (Reply 18):
AS doesn't have that large of an operation at LAX anymore where they are going to need access to both the common use gates and CO gates.

Agreed. The only markets mainline AS serves more than twice daily are YVR, SEA, and PDX - they don't fly south of the border all day long anymore. You could probably fit that whole operation in 4 gates, and then give 2 to QX. No real need for much more than that unless AS is planning some big expansion after its move.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24364 posts, RR: 47
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2774 times:

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 19):
Question is, where else would they want to fly?

Well Dave Barger was quoted last year commenting...
JetBlue Ponders LAX International Services (by LAXintl Jun 10 2009 in Civil Aviation)



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5234 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2623 times:

Quoting N623JB (Reply 12):
Is it possible of making another city in California a "Focus City"?


A question that I have asked quite a bit in the last few years. I know that others have offered opinions about one such possibility -- SAN -- but I would disagree.

Blue started serving SAN in June '03 with 1 daily n/s to JFK; by Sept of that year, they had 3 daily n/s in the market. In May 2005, IAD was added (1 daily r/t) while SAN-JFK seasonally shifted from 2 to 3 daily flights. In June of 2007, BOS was added and in July, SLC service began, which took us up to 6 daily departures for that summer. In May of 2008, a second SLC flight was added, along with a SEA flight -- taking us to our all-time high of 8 daily (summer) departures! It looked to me like my hopes of San Diego becoming a focus city for B6 were maybe actually going to happen.

Then, along with the beginning of the economic hits, upward-spiraling fuel prices, and other issues, it all started to unravel at SAN -- and elsewhere. Needless to say, I still blame those factors primarily for the fact that we are now heading down to just 3 daily flights this winter... (BTW, I think the IAD flight was doing fine but fuel prices plus B6's elimination of WAS as a focus city were responsible for the cutting of that route. Also, I felt it very unrealistic for B6 to try and enter the SAN-SEA market, a real AS stronghold with 7 or 8 daily flights, with only 1 r/t...)

I think there are routes that B6 could start from SAN and I will continue to hope that they might give SAN another crack at expansion. Although low-yielding, routes like MCO and FLL certainly have the traffic out of SAN and remain completely unserved by anyone; who better than Blue (or WN or maybe even VX) to possibly make these routes work? If B6 re-thinks IAD (or DCA if anything happens with the perimeter situation), I see no reason why SAN would not be re-started. AUS sees 2x daily service from Lindbergh on WN so there must be a pretty good amount of traffic and competition should be a good thing on that route. And for that matter, I won't give up on the SEA and SLC routes either, for somewhere down the road....

Finally, with VX in-house at Lindbergh, a lot of the potential routes I mentioned above could be jumped on by them. (I really don't think that will happen -- partly because it hasn't yet -- but I guess it's possible.) Since Blue is battling Virgin on many fronts, might it not behoove JetBlue to try a couple of the SAN-routes as a pre-emptive move against possible expansion by VX? I do.

bb


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2406 times:

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Thread starter):
So I was looking on jetBlue.com today and I saw that they fly JFK-LGB (2x) half as much as JFK-LAX (4x). Is jetBlue looking to shift their LGB Hub/Focus City to LAX?

I haven't been paying enough attention I guess. What a massive drop from their peak at LGB.

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 3):
True. Since LGB is so slot-restricted, my opinion is that it's better for B6 to concentrate some of its transcon activity to a less restricted airport, and focus its short-haul West-Coast network from LGB.

See, I would think just the opposite. Slots are slots. Might as well use them for flights with less frequency. Also, it is a lot less attractive to drive out of the way to LGB for a short haul than a long haul.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 4):
The JFK-BUR flights are extremely popular with the Hollywood/entertainment crowd

Not particularly, for reasons mentioned

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):

B6 came in to BUR thinking they might manage some entertainment business particularly Disney, but quickly realized this was not to be and had to ditch some BUR flying when folks stuck with their UA corporate contracts.

The big miscalculation was that they thought they could lure business from the Mouse, including starting BUR-MCO.

Quoting flyingcat (Reply 15):

Besides the move will be at least a year from now. As soon as the CO/UA merger is clear than CO can move out and the renovations can occur for an AS move in. The renovations alone will take time.

CO would be stupid to surrender gates that they hold a strong leasehold interest in. Remember, CO owns the leasehold on the connector building and the gates in it. They need the gates and the President's Club in order to cope.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 19):
After UA surrendered most of its T6 gates to the airport (who then gave them to the small domestic tenants I mentioned earlier)

UA still uses their T6 gates from time to time.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
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...
JFK-LAX-JFK VirginAmerica Starts Today posted Thu Aug 30 2007 00:34:09 by SpencerII
United JFK-SFO-JFK, JFK-LAX-JFK posted Mon Mar 6 2000 02:54:29 by United747-400
JetBlue Airways Doubles Daily Flights JFK-LAX posted Mon Mar 15 2010 07:31:39 by yazoo
JetBlue Suspends LAX Startup From JFK And BOS posted Mon May 5 2008 17:24:31 by JRodriguez136
Virgin America Flight 404 - LAX-JFK 16 Hours posted Tue Mar 16 2010 07:39:56 by N62NA
DL FAs And LAX-JFK posted Sat Oct 24 2009 16:42:04 by Caleb1
DL's JFK-LAX And BusinessElite posted Fri Oct 23 2009 08:21:31 by FlyASAGuy2005
AA 181 Jfk-lax Diverted To Detroit posted Fri Oct 2 2009 16:51:25 by Waggingtail
CX/SQ's Proposed LHR-JFK/LAX-SYD Routes posted Mon Sep 21 2009 20:23:03 by United Airline
JetBlue Emergency At JFK Now! posted Tue Apr 14 2009 19:45:34 by CanyonBlue17