Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ontario Asks Lawa To Stop Stalling On ONT  
User currently offlinebeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 526 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4781 times:

The City of Ontario has been trying since late 2010 to regain control of ONT from the Los Angeles World Airports agency, which is part of the City of LA.

LAWA and Los Angeles City Hall have held firm that they will not turn over control ONT to Ontario or any other agency formed to provide local control in the Inland Empire. Ontario made an offer to pay $50M to take over control, which was turned down by LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as a "fire sale" price, at which time he also declared that there would be a waiting period of 2 years before ONT could be sold. No reason given by the media as to the significance of the 2 year period. Later, Ontario officials declared the total value of the offer at $250 million. http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_19915208


During the past year, there have been several moves. The California State Senate passed SB 446 which authorized formation of a regional authority to operate ONT. The bill passed with only one dissenting vote, which came from an area near BUR. There was no opposition from senators in the immediate area of LAX.

SB 446 text: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...bill_20110407_amended_sen_v98.html

The legislative analysis contains history, and also offers some reasons for ONT's struggles like we have seen on a.net, like double digit unemployment in the immediate area which is higher than California's statewide double digit unemployment rate. (my personal input is that the double digit unemployment in Los Angeles is somewhere between the ONT area and California's rate).
SB 446 analysis:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/..._cfa_20110428_140321_sen_comm.html

However SB446 was tabled to allow negotiation between Ontario and LAWA to continue.

Over 30 city councils have passed resolutions supporting local control of ONT, most from the ONT service area, but also from Inglewood, which is adjacent to LAX, and Laguna Niguel, in southern Orange County. Several of the cities are in the San Gabriel Valley, which is in between ONT, BUR, and LAX.

After an LA Times story purported ONT to be nearly abandoned (strange for being busier than LGB, BUR, RNO, TUS, and many smaller facilities), polls indicated that most LA residents didn't know they owned an extra airport, and were willing to sell it. In the aftermath of this story, two LA city council members called for a study of the valuation of ONT and how it could be returned to local control.

Local control officials have set up their PR campaign online, at setontariofree.com, and also on Facebook and Twitter. LAWA has responded with a page on its own site.

In the last few weeks, LAWA has warmed up quite a bit, offering a brand new marketing plan in a couple of months. It obviously will exceed the previous marketing plan here LAWA went to the Long Beach Travel Show to promote ONT as "LA's second airport". Considering that Long Beach has its own airport, and that LAX is reasonably nearby, promoting a distant facility 50+ miles away was not a winning proposition when there are four closer airports.

So this week, the call from Ontario has been to stop stalling and get some serious talks going. The momentum is there, the passengers are there, and obviously a local agency would have ONT as its top priority.


135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3412 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4578 times:

Never understood why LAWA wanted ONT and PMD in the first place. Local control is usually the best solution unless they're backwoods rubes.


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offline747srule From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4378 times:

ONT was modernized in the late 90's or early 2000's to bring more traffic to the Inland Empire. This was done to relieve congestion at LAX. However prices at ONT are exorbitant compared to LAX. People would rather go to LAX for cheaper fares. Also,last I heard, ONT has only one intl flight,and that is to Mexico.On top of that, most of ONT's flight are to connect in other airports. You can not even fly to ORD last I knew. ONT really needs to step up before they can claim to be a viable airport. I live about three miles away and all I see is Southwest.


Jesus is the way,the truth,and the life
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4260 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4359 times:

Quoting 747srule (Reply 2):
ONT was modernized in the late 90's or early 2000's to bring more traffic to the Inland Empire. This was done to relieve congestion at LAX. However prices at ONT are exorbitant compared to LAX. People would rather go to LAX for cheaper fares. Also,last I heard, ONT has only one intl flight,and that is to Mexico.On top of that, most of ONT's flight are to connect in other airports. You can not even fly to ORD last I knew. ONT really needs to step up before they can claim to be a viable airport. I live about three miles away and all I see is Southwest.

Part of the problem with what you said is the fact that landing fees and operating costs at ONT are much higher for carriers than LAX. This is why the local governments have been trying to wrest control of ONT away from LAWA. Why LAWA won't budge is beyond me, other than fear of losing pax to ONT if the local people get it and lower costs to airlines, which will encourage airline growth at ONT and revitalize the local economy, which has tanked partially due to the ONT problems.


User currently onlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7553 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4340 times:

I see the politics in LA havent died down since I left.


Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1362 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4322 times:

Funny story.

People should realize how Los Angeles got control of Ontario airport to begin with.

Its too convenient for the peoples of Ontario to not remember they defaulted and literally walked away from the airport by failing to fund the airport leaving the airport in a weird legal limbo in the hands of the FAA. The FAA then contacted the City of Los Angeles to see if it could take over the management of the facility, and the City of Ontario and Los Angeles reached a joint powers agreement for airport operation in 1967. Then in 1985, Ontario relinquished all control of the airport when City of Los Angeles purchased the facilities entirely.

Also it seems the Ontario folks like to ignore the many hundreds of millions LA has invested in the airport with their paltry financial offers. Why should LA not be properly compensated for its 45-years of investment now?

Lastly, it seems to me the elected people in Ontario live in a glass house, and fail to look around and realize their airports conditions are not unique - the entire US secondary airport have seen traffic declines are airline service has shifted, and all LA airports such as Burbank, and Orange County also have seen traffic declines. Plus off course the terrible economic condition that portion of California has experienced. From US Census bureau the Inland Empire has one of the highest poverty rate in California (32.4% residents) - certainly these people not traveling or create business demand for airlines.   


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26426 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4282 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 1):

Never understood why LAWA wanted ONT and PMD in the first place. Local control is usually the best solution unless they're backwoods rubes.

PMD has never been ideal, because the military wants to maintain control. The growth out that way has made it an attractive potential option, but military restrictions and the local economy have always held it down.

As for ONT, there are lots of reasons. Its the perfect alternative airport to LAX. It can serve a distinct population base in Eastern L.A. County, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties as well as parts of San Diego and Orange Counties. ONT has 2 long runways and is almost never encumbered by weather. It also sits on a rather large piece of land which can support a lot of growth. The access is also excellent from local freeways and its near enough rail lines that public transport can eventually be sent out there.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 5):

Great points.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1362 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4276 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 3):
Part of the problem with what you said is the fact that landing fees and operating costs at ONT are much higher for carriers than LAX.

No landing fee not higher at ONT. LAX is still much more expensive.

From 2012 fee schedule as adopted in June 2011.

Landing fee (per 1,000lbs)

LAX
Pax aircraft: $4.36
Cargo aircraft $3.57

ONT
Pax aircraft: $2.32
Cargo aircraft $2.32

Parking (per 1,000lbs)
LAX - $0.40
ONT - $0.40


Also from other document I have

“From 2007-2011, the following reductions were made at ONT:
 Reduced operating expenditures 23%
 Reduced contractual services18%
 Reduced utilities 16%
 Reduced personnel 36% (full-time employees from 430 to 274)
 Consolidated shuttle bus and parking operations
The Cost Per Enplaned passenger (CPE) at ONT was $11.76 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, down from a high of $13.50 in 2010. We expect FY2012 to be lower. “


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2752 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4185 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 7):
No landing fee not higher at ONT. LAX is still much more expensive.

From 2012 fee schedule as adopted in June 2011.

Although these figures are important, what could be more important is the CPE (Cost per Enplaned Passenger) between the two airports. This is the number that, simply stated, is charged to the airlines after the airport figures out its total operational costs, and then subtracts all other (non-airline) income that it receives (concession rentals, parking, etc.), and then divides this remaining amount that is charged to the airlines operating there by the number of enplaned passengers (or departing passengers)

Year ending 6/30/11, the CPE for ONT is $12.28, and for LAX it is $11.33. And the ONT cost is rather high in terms of U.S. average, and also is rather high for an airport its size. Now, the $11.33 for LAX will be rising a lot and soon, considering all of the financing that's happening as a result of construction there. And ONT, I believe, is pretty well set in terms of its future constructions.

Keeping costs down, and increasing pax at ONT needs to be the goal of those owning/managing ONT. If somehow ONT could get its pax count up to the levels it had in the years of 2004-2006, and it's enplanements were around 3.5M (instead of the current 2.4M) and all other things stay equal, then doing some simple math, the estimated CPE with the 3.5M would be around $8.25, and that would obviously be better as far as ONT would be concerned.

 


User currently offlinebeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 526 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4100 times:

Quoting 747srule (Reply 2):
You can not even fly to ORD last I knew.

For most of the 1990s, UA and AA combined for 8 daily non-stops to ORD, and for a few years, there was 1x WN to MDW. The WN flight was dropped but returned in 2010. However WN does not offer the same connections beyond Chicago that UA or AA would offer. Lack of ORD service is bigger than anyone realizes, though ONT's passenger traffic peaked severakl years after ORD was dropped by everyone.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 4):

I see the politics in LA havent died down since I left.

Definitely not, and this is an issue on which nearly the entire state senate agreed upon.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 5):
Its too convenient for the peoples of Ontario to not remember they defaulted and literally walked away from the airport by failing to fund the airport leaving the airport in a weird legal limbo in the hands of the FAA. The FAA then contacted the City of Los Angeles to see if it could take over the management of the facility, and the City of Ontario and Los Angeles reached a joint powers agreement for airport operation in 1967. Then in 1985, Ontario relinquished all control of the airport when City of Los Angeles purchased the facilities entirely.

Who is "they"? The 1970 census for Ontario was 64,000. In 2010 it was 164,000. Not necessarily the same people in Ontario now, I am not going to look up how old the current city council members are, but the oldest were probably barely of voting age in 1967.

LA had its reasons to want to take control of ONT in 1967. Part of this was for a good :LAX alternate that could not be provided by BUR. Question is why they feel the need to hold on to it now, when most constituents don't want an extra airport, and they know that Ontario is committed to operating it as an airport.

In 1985, the payment was something like $60,000 to settle the 1967 JPA. There had been previous investments prior to that by LAWA. How much of those did not come from ONT income?

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 5):
Also it seems the Ontario folks like to ignore the many hundreds of millions LA has invested in the airport with their paltry financial offers. Why should LA not be properly compensated for its 45-years of investment now?

The LAWA number is $533M. According to Ontario, they are offering $250M. LAWA was collecting landing fees, gate and parking fees, and PFCs, not raiding piggybanks of LA taxpayers. If they were, then the LA residents are right, and LAWA should dump ONT.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 5):
Lastly, it seems to me the elected people in Ontario live in a glass house, and fail to look around and realize their airports conditions are not unique - the entire US secondary airport have seen traffic declines are airline service has shifted, and all LA airports such as Burbank, and Orange County also have seen traffic declines.

Not similar. Traffic declines since 2005:
1. CVG -69%
2. ONT -37%
3. OAK -36%
4. PVD -32%
5. RNO -27%
9. BUR -22%
11. PIT -20%
19. SNA -10%

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 5):
Plus off course the terrible economic condition that portion of California has experienced. From US Census bureau the Inland Empire has one of the highest poverty rate in California (32.4% residents) - certainly these people not traveling or create business demand for airlines.   

So what? That leaves over 2 million local residents who can travel.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 6):
PMD has never been ideal, because the military wants to maintain control. The growth out that way has made it an attractive potential option, but military restrictions and the local economy have always held it down.

Many years ago there were discussions of making PMD the International airport, linked to LA and LAX by high speed rail. However, air travel should not start with a long traing trip.

BTW PMD and VNY also want out of LAWA.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 7):
No landing fee not higher at ONT. LAX is still much more expensive.

That is all in the last year. When the meltdown started, landing fees were higher.

Also, the staff reduction is just linear to the traffic decline, so reasonable at best. The problem with ONT staffing is they are paid LA rates even though we have a slightly lower cost of living here. Any savings through things consolidation of IT are negated by the high bureaucratic cost of LA departments, with a 15% admin fee added on top of that. LAWA provides police for ONT, while Ontario could contract with San Bernardino Sheriff for much less. It goes on and on and on.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26426 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4018 times:

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
BTW PMD and VNY also want out of LAWA.

PMD is military, so it will always be weird.

VNY isn't going anywhere. LAWA control keeps GA at LAX to a minimum.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
LAWA provides police for ONT, while Ontario could contract with San Bernardino Sheriff for much less

I don't see how they could. LAWA grew their police department because of the expense of using local agencies.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3986 times:

The one question I do have is: What county does ONT sit in? I'm gonna bet it is not LA County.....

So then with that in mind, why does LAWA need to control ONT for? ONT should be on their own and compete with LAX. I don't understand why ONT is so valuable to LAWA if not very many airlines are operating at ONT (becasue of high cost...), it makes no sense to me.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1362 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3936 times:

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
Who is "they"?

The legal entity known as the City of Ontario.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
So what? That leaves over 2 million local residents who can travel.

Look around California. The economic picture of Inland Empire is sad. It does not drive the business or leisure demand of the past.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
Not similar. Traffic declines since 2005:

As you see - ONT is not much different that OAK for example. Like in Bay Area, people don't care to access OAK, as SFO has seen a renaissance of demand.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
BTW PMD and VNY also want out of LAWA.

PMD has nothing to do with LAWA now. LAWA only ran the passenger facility, not the entire airport.

VNY which is physically located in the City of Los Angeles merely wants a local steering committee to provide input on local issue. No illusions to separate.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
That is all in the last year. When the meltdown started, landing fees were higher.

Give me a year, and I will look it up. In my experience over last 10-years the fee structure at ONT always trailed LAX.

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
Also, the staff reduction is just linear to the traffic decline, so reasonable at best. The problem with ONT staffing is they are paid LA rates even though we have a slightly lower cost of living here. Any savings through things consolidation of IT are negated by the high bureaucratic cost of LA departments, with a 15% admin fee added on top of that. LAWA provides police for ONT, while Ontario could contract with San Bernardino Sheriff for much less. It goes on and on and on.

It goes on and on, for those that ignore the facts.

Looking at simply employment counts, is not a very valid thing, as LAWA is a A to Z agency that is self sufficient. Contracting out reduces the body count off the books, but in reality the bodies are still there and paid for still. Airports like SNA and LGB look more 'efficient' having less employees as they contract out much to their respective county or city for example. Also don't forget being part of the LAWA shares with ONT with a host of back-end support which if self managed it would have to bear the full cost for.


At the end of the day the downturn at ONT is not because of LAWA, but much more based on macro-economics.
Both the economic picture of the US/California has changed, and that of airlines and routes they can economically service.


Anyhow - in the long run for those that cry about cost, ONT fees will either decline or be stable under LAWA. This is while LAX fees will rise signficantly with all the development work, while SNA and LGB also see their fees rise as debt servicing cost of new terminals and parking structures accrue. Only remaining relative 'cheap' SoCal airport will be BUR.


User currently offlineAS739BSI From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3914 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
So then with that in mind, why does LAWA need to control ONT for?

My thinking would be to receive more money from directing more passengers to fly out of LAX in order to collect the $$ needed for the TBIT rebuild.


User currently offlineLOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 1136 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3909 times:

Quoting beardown91737 (Reply 9):
Many years ago there were discussions of making PMD the International airport, linked to LA and LAX by high speed rail. However, air travel should not start with a long traing trip.

And yet, for those of us in Europe who so often begin our journeys with "long" train trips, we seem to do all right. Better than sitting in a car, alone, for an hour in heavy traffic. Then having to find a parking place. Less stress you see. Makes the whole journey much more pleasant.


User currently offlinethreeifbyair From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 674 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3867 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
The one question I do have is: What county does ONT sit in? I'm gonna bet it is not LA County.....

ONT and the city of Ontario are in San Bernadino County. LAWA is an arm of the City of Los Angeles, though, not the county.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
So then with that in mind, why does LAWA need to control ONT for? ONT should be on their own and compete with LAX. I don't understand why ONT is so valuable to LAWA if not very many airlines are operating at ONT (becasue of high cost...), it makes no sense to me

LAWA probably doesn't have a great business case for owning ONT either. If I was a citizen of Los Angeles, I'd wonder why my city owned another city's airport. Ontario citizens are obviously wondering the opposite thing.


User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1362 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3834 times:

I forgot to mention -

Looking at ONT based strictly on passenger counts does not present the whole image.

ONT is the Western US sorting hub for UPS, and as a result is one of the top Western US cargo through put airports.

So ONT is simply not a smaller passenger airport such as BUR/LGB/SNA for example, but has entire other business side to it which also cost money to manage and run.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3829 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 12):
In my experience over last 10-years the fee structure at ONT always trailed LAX.

If that was the case, then F9 would still be flying to ONT...... and probably a few other airlines and ONT would be much better today.... ONT would be as popular as LAX is and would be driving in revenue.

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 15):
ONT and the city of Ontario are in San Bernadino County.

That is what I thought.

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 15):
LAWA is an arm of the City of Los Angeles, though, not the county.

I thought it was the county in charge, not the city. I had no idea about that.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1362 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3807 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 17):
If that was the case, then F9 would still be flying to ONT...... and probably a few other airlines and ONT would be much better today.... ONT would be as popular as LAX is and would be driving in revenue.

Airline fly where people want to fly to.
Why do you think airlines fight for rate slots to operate at places like worlds most expensive Heathrow and Narita?

Over the years many airlines have tried service to secondary airports in LA basin including ONT. For example Air Canada tried both ONT and SNA, but stuck to its LAX service at the end.

If you want example of Frontier what happened with its service to Long Beach ?? It lasted what barely 12-months?

Like with all business its, location, location, location.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3776 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 18):
Airline fly where people want to fly to.

When it comes to ONT, not really. F9 pulled out of ONT because of the high costs of flying there, same with a few other airlines.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 18):
If you want example of Frontier what happened with its service to Long Beach ?? It lasted what barely 12-months?

Blame Republic for that one, not F9. F9 pulled out of SJC because of high costs to fly there.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 18):
For example Air Canada tried both ONT and SNA, but stuck to its LAX service at the end.

Because LAX was cheaper.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25081 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3722 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 18):
If you want example of Frontier what happened with its service to Long Beach ?? It lasted what barely 12-months?

There's a bitty more to it than favored airport.

DEN to the LA Basin is one of the most saturated markets in the country - Delta pulled it's planned DEN-LAX flights before they even started.

http://airlineroute.net/2012/01/04/dl-laxden-jun12cxld/

"DELTA Cancels Los Angeles-Denver Launch due June 2012"

Frontier found that DEN-LGB was not increasing the pool but was cannibalizing its own DEN-LAX.

Frontier's DEN-ONT (with Mesa RJ's) was a whole other story, involving United and the Ted A320's - and $90 round trips.  

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1362 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3661 times:

And the point is airlines fly to where people are willing to go. Airport cost, is not the end story.

If people want to fly to ONT, airlines will serve it the same manner they do airports all over the world. Airports like NRT, LHR, etc are well known being some of the most expensive to operate at, yet airlines often fight hard to get a vacant slot.

Above it was mentioned about OAK traffic being down. OAK is one of the cheapest facilities in the US, but yet airlines prefer to go across bay to SFO. Why - because people want SFO...
Down in LA, carries that focus on cost like JetBlue, Allegiant and Spirit have forgone other cheaper LA Basin airports to grow at LAX.

Its only when airlines cannot drive the traffic and revenue that things like airport cost become convenient excuses. ONT has lots more problems than a headline fee structure.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3654 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 21):
Airport cost, is not the end story.

Uh, yes it is. If it wasn't, then we would be seeing ONT blooming with business at no end and F9 would be flying to ONT 5x daily.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 21):
OAK is one of the cheapest facilities in the US, but yet airlines prefer to go across bay to SFO. Why - because people want SFO...

OAK may be one of the cheapest, yes. People don't go to SFO because it is SFO. People go to SFO because that is the only airport in the Bay Area that offers more than OAK does, and it isn't a choice. OAK does not have flights to LHR or NRT or AKL when SFO does. They have to go to SFO for that.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 21):
ONT has lots more problems than a headline fee structure.

Such as........???



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1362 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3529 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
Uh, yes it is. If it wasn't, then we would be seeing ONT blooming with business at no end and F9 would be flying to ONT 5x daily.

If it was cost driven, you would have airlines flying to BUR - its about 75% cheaper at mere $3-4 per pax total.

You'd have 5x daily there, but you don't, as its not fee driven.

Airlines again fly to where people want to go... and its not BUR, or ONT based on this discussion.

Secondary airports will work if you want to discount your flight enough to change the consumer habit, but otherwise for the same money people go where they will.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
OAK may be one of the cheapest, yes. People don't go to SFO because it is SFO. People go to SFO because that is the only airport in the Bay Area that offers more than OAK does, and it isn't a choice. OAK does not have flights to LHR or NRT or AKL when SFO does. They have to go to SFO for that.

OK, then same can be said for LAX.

LAX is Los Angeles for the world, and even most residents. Places like BUR, SNA, LGB and ONT are community airports. If people find option at those, great, however bulk of demand is to LAX. When people think of LA it means LAX for most, as SFO does for Bay Area.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
Such as........???

Even overseas I see the terrible economic news about California Inland Empire.

Now 2nd poorest city in America per Census
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...ews/local/inland_empire&id=8436598
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ically-hard-hit-inland-empire.html

# 4 top spot in America for foreclosures
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...ltyTrac-Real-Estate-133632113.html

Highest regional unemployement rate since California State started keeping records
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...ews/local/inland_empire&id=7324176

Massive economic downturn.- lost 10-years of growth
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_18955336

All put together provide shortfall in tax revenues putting more pressure on local services, and causing even more government layoffs and further economic malaise.

So people don't have money, and business is not active like it used to which means reduce commerce demand.

Under such conditions certainly neither leisure or business air-travel will flourish at airport such problem area as ONT.

.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26426 posts, RR: 76
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3353 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):

The one question I do have is: What county does ONT sit in? I'm gonna bet it is not LA County.....

San Bernardino. That isn't what matters.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
So then with that in mind, why does LAWA need to control ONT for?

Because they bought it. A long time ago.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
ONT should be on their own and compete with LAX.

I would venture to say that ONT would get toasted if they were on their own. Then probably revert to LAWA control.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
I don't understand why ONT is so valuable to LAWA if not very many airlines are operating at ONT (becasue of high cost...), it makes no sense to me.

Its not because of high cost. Its about the fact that ONT is the least convenient airport in the region to those with economic power.

Quoting LOWS (Reply 14):
And yet, for those of us in Europe who so often begin our journeys with "long" train trips, we seem to do all right.

The difference is that we don't have nearly as well developed a public transportation system, and LAX is already a massive airport that is 5 million passengers down from 2000 and can still expand.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 16):

Great points.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 17):
If that was the case, then F9 would still be flying to ONT...... and probably a few other airlines and ONT would be much better today.... ONT would be as popular as LAX is and would be driving in revenue.

   You are kidding, right? Look at the population density around ONT. Look at the economic differences. Its not even close. F9 doesn't fly to ONT because they can't generate high yielding traffic there.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 17):
I thought it was the county in charge, not the city. I had no idea about that.

You don't seem to understand much of the dynamics here.

Anyway, the City of Los Angeles owns LAWA. Before it was named LAWA, it was called the City of Los Angeles Department of Airports.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 19):
F9 pulled out of ONT because of the high costs of flying there, same with a few other airlines.

"A few other airlines?" ONT doesn't have as many airlines as it used to because of consolidation - pure and simple. It has always been a regional relief airport. F9 didn't pull out because of high costs, because the costs just aren't that high.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 19):
Because LAX was cheaper.

No. LAX is where the traffic is. BUR and SNA are the relievers where the money is.

Quoting mariner (Reply 20):
Frontier's DEN-ONT (with Mesa RJ's) was a whole other story, involving United and the Ted A320's - and $90 round trips.

Exactly. RJs are already a high cost option, and United drew a line in the sand with that.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
Uh, yes it is. If it wasn't, then we would be seeing ONT blooming with business at no end and F9 would be flying to ONT 5x daily.

Come on. ONT just doesn't have the population or the economic might to compete.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 23):
Airlines again fly to where people want to go... and its not BUR, or ONT based on this discussion.

Well, BUR is a different animal. Its constrained some by the runways and a whole lot by the NIMBYs. BUR would likely have higher traffic than ONT if it were in the same location but had ONT's facilities.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
25 Post contains images point2point : In a way, this is sort of an off (for lack of a better word here) comparison with these airports. It seems that the situation is different in a way h
26 AirframeAS : Then why bother keeping ONT functional and operational?? It sure doesn't stop WN from flying into ONT, as well as AS.
27 laca773 : True. Recently, WN has made multiple reductions in the markets they serve from ONT. AS has axed two SEA-ONT-SEA flights and PDX-ONT-PDX has been down
28 N1120A : LAX has an agreed upon plan to limit capacity by reducing gates used when the airport crosses a certain threshold of passengers. That number is about
29 mercure1 : No slots at LAX, for gates, well terminals are mostly under long term lease to tenant airlines, but that has not been an issue for carriers like JetB
30 aquablue : What's the plan when the limits are reached for LAX and the small airports around are full too (without expansion)? Is that when ONT is going to reall
31 SurfandSnow : I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. The airlines will continue to adjust their services to ONT, for better or for worse, based on ma
32 AWACSooner : What about SBD as an alternative? Start from scratch on a practically bare airfield and see what happens?
33 N1120A : That would make things even more problematic. SBD is way too close to ONT to be of any use. ONT is a great airfield with lots of room for growth. Whe
34 Post contains images point2point : Okay, thank you for this, and now if I may ask, are there any sort of restrictions at BUR? Maybe the size of the aircraft, maybe the hours of operati
35 apodino : There are a lot of issues with BUR that aren't necessarily restrictions, but impediments to big operations. One being the runways and terrain near th
36 AirframeAS : But it hasn't. Airlines were pulling out and/or reducing service. Why? Because it costs too much to fly to ONT for airlines to even provide service.
37 N1120A : The restrictions are largely physical. There is a curfew. Aircraft size is limited only by the runways and ramps. Its really hypocrisy. They love fly
38 AirframeAS : Then explain why airlines have either pulled out of ONT or reduced service and saying it is becuase of the high cost to do business there? Sooner or
39 N1120A : Airlines give lots of reasons for things. LAX was the cheapest, by far, major hub airport in the world. They were talking about raising fees years ag
40 mercure1 : Ah.. how many times do we have to repeat the same..... Airline fail to get revenues in ONT, because as we have clearly explained the market is in the
41 UAL747DEN : The point that seems to be missed here is the fact that LAWA owns ONT and it would be completely crazy for them to just turn the airport over because
42 mariner : [Edited 2012-03-08 16:51:22]
43 slcdeltarumd11 : Heres the busiest destnations and numbers for a year period ending late 2011. The area has been hit exceptionally hard so that is a factor to consider
44 bjorn14 : This surprised me a bit. I thought LAS would be in the top 3. Why so much traffic to PHX?
45 Post contains links and images beardown91737 : The objective is not to try to get people living in Los Angeles to drive to ONT to get on an airplane. It is to be able to keep people who live closer
46 Post contains links beardown91737 : More movement from supporters on the LA City Council.
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...
Delta Files Order To Stop Payment On LAX Facilitie posted Fri Oct 14 2005 02:49:00 by Rsmith6621a
Ontario Wants To Take Control Of ONT posted Thu Sep 16 2010 15:59:37 by SurfandSnow
TWU Asks Panel To Start Strike Clock On AA posted Thu Mar 11 2010 11:57:18 by ssides
AI To Reduce Frequencies On JFK-BOM/DEL Non-Stop? posted Fri Jun 20 2008 21:27:46 by LAXDESI
Rumors:EY To Make A Stop @ CDG On The Way To USA posted Sat Jan 12 2008 04:25:45 by Dennys
Verizon Airfone To Stop Phone Service On Planes posted Sat Jun 24 2006 00:14:31 by KarlB737
UA To Stop Operations At Midway On Sept 9 posted Wed Jun 7 2006 11:11:25 by UAL777UK
AirTran Airways To Stop Selling Tickets On Expedia posted Sat Oct 29 2005 06:22:39 by Squirrel83
TCX To Stop US Flights If Sky Marshalls On A/c posted Tue Jan 6 2004 13:09:58 by GKirk
Fossett And Branson To Go Non-stop Solo On Virgin. posted Wed Oct 29 2003 20:05:30 by Commander_rabb