southwest737500 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 594 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5274 times:
Happy holidays
I was curious about B6 operation in LGB. I understand the airport is slot restricted. Here is the list if cities they offer out of LGB.Austin, Boston, Las Vegas, New York-JFK, Oakland, Portland (OR), Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Seattle/Tacoma, Washington-Dulles
Seasonal: Anchorage
I'm curious to no how many slots B6 has an how many flights
Is it possible to see a B6 flight to PHX if they have some slots. Also in May AUS goes 2X.
I understand B6 wanted to sneak into. Commuter slot for the E190. Is it possible the rules for the commuter alot could be levitated and If so where do you think these E190s will go too.
They could be used to beef u frequency open markets like DEN,PHX, ABQ or new markets like GEG,TUS , RNO, OKC TUL(I dout)
I'm biased an would love to see a LGB-CLT as seasonal but that's a DEAM
Thoughts
Planes I've been on: Dash8,CRJ 200,CRJ 700,CRJ 900,ERJ 175, ERJ 190, 717,732,733,734,735,737,738.A319,A320,A321,762,763
LAXintl From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 22062 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5265 times:
JetBlue holds 32 air carrier slots.
The E190 does not qualify as a commuter. Its too heavy (limit it 75,000lbs).
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
southwest737500 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 594 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5215 times:
iowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4099 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5074 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
It seems B6 is the only one interested in LGB slots which is a smiliar situation with SNA and WN up the road. There seems to be a market willing to use LGB if the price is right as there is no doubt a lot of other options particularly for socal - Vegas and OAK which B6 competes on.
Quoting southwest737500 (Thread starter): They could be used to beef u frequency open markets like DEN,PHX, ABQ or new markets like GEG,TUS , RNO, OKC TUL(I dout)
I'm biased an would love to see a LGB-CLT as seasonal but that's a DEAM
LGB-PHX would seem like a reasonable route for them to consider slot permitting. DEN would seem reasonable as well. GEG, TUS, OKC, and TUL all seem less likely in my opinion but who knows. WN is already cancelling ONT-RNO (a recently launched route) so I'm not sure how well LGB-RNO would fair. LGB-CLT is probably unlikely as you said.
slcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5025 times:
I think delta has applied in almost every recent opening for mainline slots too
hawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3092 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4951 times:
Other airlines have expressed interest in LGB slots as well. When a slot becomes available interested airlines notify the airport, and if there is more interest then the number available, they are awarded by lottery.
With US already running up to 5x/day LGB-PHX with CRJ-900 and A319, I don't really see it as a likely JetBlue market.
flyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 854 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4638 times:
Quoting southwest737500 (Reply 2): It would be nice if they could use the commuter slots for the E190 and just try to levitate the weight rule
Local politics and airport authority make any changes at LGB pretty difficult. I believe that was B6's intiial idea when they were flying the E190s through LGB a few years ago.
jetbluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2785 posts, RR: 15 Reply 8, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4600 times:
Slightly off topic, but today B6 announced a second frequency on LGB-AUS beginning in May 2013.
Quoting iowaman (Reply 3): LGB-PHX would seem like a reasonable route for them to consider slot permitting. DEN would seem reasonable as well.
Why would PHX and DEN be reasonable? These must be extremely low-yielding routes, especially considering that WN offers loads of capacity out of LAX.
Then again, LGB-OAK/SFO/LAS aren't exactly high yielding...so you may have a point.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 6):
I think it's the ramp/terminal situation that makes LGB difficult.
The new terminal recently opened, and is significantly better than the old situation. Apparently the new terminal has preserved the integrity of the airport but made material upgrades to facilities.
Quoting flyby519 (Reply 7): Local politics and airport authority make any changes at LGB pretty difficult. I believe that was B6's intiial idea when they were flying the E190s through LGB a few years ago.
This still boggles my mind. In case Long Beach-area residents live under a rock (possible), they would be aware that the unemployment rate in CA is 10%+. Allowing additional air service would vastly stimulate local economic activity. More airport employees would be hired, tax receipts would increase, and various industries would see significant increases in activity (rental car companies, hotels, restaurants, etc.) Leave it to a handful of idiotic residents to keep economic prosperity from having a chance. I bet PIT, CVG, and MEM residents would kill to be in a situation where an airline wants to expand at their airport. What a shame.
Just my $.02.
JetBluefan1
Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
HeeseokKoo From South Korea, joined Jan 2005, 522 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4556 times:
Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8): Slightly off topic, but today B6 announced a second frequency on LGB-AUS beginning in May 2013.
Awesome. Current single daily schedule is not good for Austin-base customers. New ones are good. Jetblue moves early morning JFK departure from 7am to 6am and put new LGB flight into 7am. Since B6 uses only one gate at Austin, it's unavoidable.
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2666 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4457 times:
Jokes on LGB.
The would have had a viable mini hub there.
Instead, B6 moved transons to LAX...and they found that you make a lot more money at LAX.
My most pessimistic predicition (worst case scenario)...LGB is nothing more than redeye transcons to JFK and BOS 5 years from now.
The best case sceneraio is they keep what they have.
jetbluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2785 posts, RR: 15 Reply 11, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4425 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 10): My most pessimistic predicition (worst case scenario)...LGB is nothing more than redeye transcons to JFK and BOS 5 years from now.
This really wouldn't surprise me. At that point, might as well close the station completely.
That said, LGB still does account for a material amount of B6's capacity. Those seats are going to have to be placed somewhere else...BOS? SJU?
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 10): The best case sceneraio is they keep what they have.
I guess it depends on which perspective you're taking.
For Long Beach-area residents and visitors, this is definitely best case -- low fares, high quality service to an easy-in/out municipal airport.
For B6, this is only a best case scenario if they can contain costs and profitably operate their current schedule. The intra-west flights have very low yields and do not particularly enhance B6's route network in a strategic way. I think the only reason LGB continues to be fully utilized by B6 is 1.) operating costs are very low, especially in comparison to competing airports and 2.) it makes the spokes much more viable from an operational efficiency perspective (i.e. 2x daytime LGB-PDX flights help lower the fixed costs allocated to PDX-JFK/BOS redeyes).
JetBluefan1
Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
ICEBIRD757 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 621 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4347 times:
Quoting southwest737500 (Thread starter): They could be used to beef u frequency open markets like DEN,PHX, ABQ or new markets like GEG,TUS , RNO, OKC TUL(I dout)
DEN - Frontier/Republic tried this and failed, although there were running bad times and frequency IMO. Low lyield market. PHX - Low yield market and not worth trying to beat US off the route. ABQ and the rest mentioned - I don't see this happening.
I would like to see ANC 8 month to year round service and FAI seasonal. I always felt that YVR would do well but the canadian airports have such high taxes, it's not worth it. Now LGB-DFW I can see as AA did it for years from here and made good money at it also.
Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8): Slightly off topic, but today B6 announced a second frequency on LGB-AUS beginning in May 2013.
I don't see that online or in my email from the company. I would not be surprised about this though, I thought a we would have gotten a second daily flight to AUS many months ago.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 6): I think it's the ramp/terminal situation that makes LGB difficult.
Actually we opened the new terminal on 12-12-12. You can see pics on the top two posts here: http://klgb.blogspot.com/. Most customers love it and even the delays we have encountered in the last week, there really has not been much complaining from customers in general.
I like the new terminal although I don't have a view of the ramp now from my office but thats ok.
LGB....where you can watch the grass grow because the traffic is so slow.
LoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3643 posts, RR: 38 Reply 13, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4299 times:
Quoting ICEBIRD757 (Reply 12): Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8):
Slightly off topic, but today B6 announced a second frequency on LGB-AUS beginning in May 2013.
I don't see that online or in my email from the company. I would not be surprised about this though, I thought a we would have gotten a second daily flight to AUS many months ago.
It was on one of Enilria's OAG threads & a press release has been posted on AUS' website:
HeeseokKoo From South Korea, joined Jan 2005, 522 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4277 times:
Writer of crankyflier.com bases on Long Beach area, and he has deep understanding about what's happening around LGB. You may want to read some of them. His points include, why aircraft weight matters when noise level might be lower with heavier and newer aircraft, why longhauls keep disappearing in LGB, etc.
ICEBIRD757 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 621 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4213 times:
Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 14): By the way, I wonder from where the slots for second AUS come from?
Currently we are only operating 25 flights a day rotating the use of some slots. So I would say this is part of the 7 slots rotating that will be filled for summer use.
I know Brett aka Cranky Flier and he is also a volunteer here at LGB as well as being a great guy.
Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 13): It was on one of Enilria's OAG threads & a press release has been posted on AUS' website:
Additional Long Beach nonstop announced by JetBlue
Nice! Now the night crew gets an AUS flight. I wonder if the flight will terminate in AUS or turn to JFK or BOS?
LGB....where you can watch the grass grow because the traffic is so slow.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 22062 posts, RR: 51 Reply 16, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4013 times:
Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8): This still boggles my mind. In case Long Beach-area residents live under a rock (possible), they would be aware that the unemployment rate in CA is 10%+.
Technically its 9.9% as of last week.
But no, LB residents and those in adjacent areas don't live under a rock. Many suffer the nuisance of hearing the nearly 300,000 annual movements at the airport. Its a very busy field by any measure.
Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8): Allowing additional air service would vastly stimulate local economic activity. More airport employees would be hired, tax receipts would increase, and various industries would see significant increases in activity (rental car companies, hotels, restaurants, etc.)
There are thankfully two side to a coin. As I said above the airport is also a nuisance to many, so why make it even worse.
Imo in reality the land the airport sits on could (some say should) continue to be repurposed for other economic activity.
An airport is not the end all or only economic option for a community.
Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8): Leave it to a handful of idiotic residents to keep economic prosperity from having a chance.
Hardly handful. The last time airport growth came up in the city council I recall the there was a unanimous voice against it.
The approval of the new terminal was very much contingent on it not leading to increased activity.
Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 8): I bet PIT, CVG, and MEM residents would kill to be in a situation where an airline wants to expand at their airport.
Sure let them have open arms. If any one wants to serve PIT, CVG or MEM good for them.
LA basin and LGB is none of those cities and has different circumstances.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4024 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3962 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 10): My most pessimistic predicition (worst case scenario)...LGB is nothing more than redeye transcons to JFK and BOS 5 years from now.
You think it will take 5 years? I think far sooner than that. It's not being pessimistic, it's being realistic. JetBlue wanted LGB to make exceptions for them, it didn't happen and B6 went to LAX. And guess what, with a more business-oriented product, Jetblue has found that there is more money to be made from LAX anyway (albeit with some challenges and constraints.)
It does have to be said, however, that had LGB allowed JetBlue's E190s to be exempt from the slots that other airlines would be also be allowed to fly their Embraers to the airport. As it is right now, JetBlue practically "owns" LGB airport.
Quoting jetbluefan1 (Reply 11): For B6, this is only a best case scenario if they can contain costs and profitably operate their current schedule.
And I don't know that they can be profitable from operating a small focus city without a major connection to the main hubs at JFK and BOS. One or two flights per day to each hub doesn't cut it.
Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 14):
Writer of crankyflier.com bases on Long Beach area, and he has deep understanding about what's happening around LGB. You may want to read some of them. His points include, why aircraft weight matters when noise level might be lower with heavier and newer aircraft, why longhauls keep disappearing in LGB, etc.
Fifteen years ago, LGB was served primarily by DC-9s, MD-80s and older model B737s. Noisy aircraft. Today the airport is served by most A320s from B6, not silent but far far quieter than aircraft from a generation earlier. Not to mention that MD/Boeing is not producing civil aircraft at Long Beach now, although I am assuming there is still a fair amount of military aircraft production and activity.
The local residents of Long Beach have stunted their airport's potential, in my opinion. I can't say that allowing more commercial flights would have solved all of the financial woes in the region but it certainly wouldn't have hurt! More passengers = more tax dollars = more spending in the area and increased desirability for new companies to move to the region.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16): Hardly handful. The last time airport growth came up in the city council I recall the there was a unanimous voice against it.
NIMBYs....gotta love them. How many of these residents lived in the Long Beach airport area before the airport existed? And is it quieter now than it was two decades ago?
ICEBIRD757 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 621 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3944 times:
Quoting richierich (Reply 17): You think it will take 5 years? I think far sooner than that. It's not being pessimistic, it's being realistic. JetBlue wanted LGB to make exceptions for them, it didn't happen and B6 went to LAX. And guess what, with a more business-oriented product, Jetblue has found that there is more money to be made from LAX anyway (albeit with some challenges and constraints.)
Some people around these parts believe that if VX were to dissappear, we would move our whole operation from LGB to LAX or atleast 50% of it.
LGB....where you can watch the grass grow because the traffic is so slow.
jetbluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2785 posts, RR: 15 Reply 19, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3895 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16): There are thankfully two side to a coin. As I said above the airport is also a nuisance to many, so why make it even worse.
It's all relative. The MD plant is no longer there, and B6's A320's and E190's are much quieter than the aircraft that have flown into LGB in the past.
Then again, I understand it is difficult to get residents to buy this argument.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16): Imo in reality the land the airport sits on could (some say should) continue to be repurposed for other economic activity.
An airport is not the end all or only economic option for a community.
I agree. The land is technically underutilized (now that the new terminal is open) due to none other than a city-backed ordinance. It may offer more economic benefit if used for something else.
Then again, one could argue that the business that develops from redeveloping the land will be taking away from business elsewhere (i.e. using the land for a mall would take away mall traffic elsewhere).
Maybe it should just be turned into a park. I'm sure the residents will appreciate it.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16): Sure let them have open arms. If any one wants to serve PIT, CVG or MEM good for them.
LA basin and LGB is none of those cities and has different circumstances.
I understand your points -- PIT, CVG, and MEM are all 20th-century hubs which are no longer viable.
However, the LA basin suffers from the opposite -- limited ability to expand. LAX is bursting at the seams, SNA is slot controlled, BUR has limited terminal space, and ONT is not convenient for anyone other than those in the eastern parts of LA. Why impose an artificial maximum on capacity at the one airport which can technically handle some more traffic?
Quoting ICEBIRD757 (Reply 18): Some people around these parts believe that if VX were to dissappear, we would move our whole operation from LGB to LAX or atleast 50% of it.
This wouldn't surprise me. B6 has become much more reactionary lately, rather than proactive as it was once was (though I do give B6's mgmt kudos for its unique Caribbean penetration). B6 is well positioned to take traffic from VX in the event it disappears (which I do NOT hope for, btw).
JetBluefan1
Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
UA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 291 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3871 times:
LGB needs to choose between 3 options.
1) Truly become a commercial airport and try to keep a carrier such as B6 strong. Nice new terminal.
2) Shut down all Airline traffic.
3) Repurpose land. The LA basin has enough Airports.
They invest in a new terminal, restrict airline ops hugely, and no one that lives there likes all the noise. They seem to be really undecided, not a great idea in today's economy.
slcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3762 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 10): The best case sceneraio is they keep what they have.
Well they cant add without more slots so they really are in a best case scenario. I wish they could add more and im sure jetblue does as well. LGB forced them to move the transcons as other said since they dont have enough slots and they have space at LAX. LGB just doesnt have enough slots for a true hub. It does seem to work as a focus city for mainly west coast flights and a few main cities for the fan base
deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1589 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3083 times:
Quoting richierich (Reply 17): It's not being pessimistic, it's being realistic. JetBlue wanted LGB to make exceptions for them, it didn't happen and B6 went to LAX. And guess what, with a more business-oriented product, Jetblue has found that there is more money to be made from LAX anyway (albeit with some challenges and constraints.)
Agreed.
Just to add though I remember when B6 started at LGB, Neelman made it very clear that it wasn't so much they felt LGB was a market but more of being like the WN strategy of avoiding "big airports". Leather seats and inseat TV was revolutionary back then and gate space was tight at LAX (although they could have gotten a few). B6 bet the farm nobody else would come in with seat back TVs, low fares, leather seats, etc if for no other reason if they weren't going to get gates at LAX nobody else was either (And the high barrier of entry to start those kinds of services) hence sealing LGB in their minds as the "alternative" for good service/low fares for years to come. Fast forward 12 years and you have VX that figured out how to get more gates at LAX, DL with identical product and soon to be AA.
When B6 announced LAX to me (IMO only) it was an "oh Sh_t) moment when they realized competitors were going to upgrade their fleets and new entrants with an equal or better product was getting gates at LAX and so their decision to start LAX.
25 iowaman: I did some research and I stand corrected - it appears in 2011 B6, DL, and US all applied for slots that G4 gave up. I think you answered your own qu
26 greg3322: Hopefully #3 will never happen. There are not many large general aviation airports around any more. CPM is very small, TOA can handle some jets but i
27 UA787DEN: I have to agree that the LA area doesn't have much for GA apart from LGB and ONT. I was just listing options. I think that LGB should stay open, but t
28 LAXintl: Not much GA ? We have the nations busiest GA airports - Van Nuys. In total the greater LA basin has tons of airports. Here are a few -Hawthorne -Sant
29 UA787DEN: I meant overall, not many large GA Airports for the population. I also meant to say that two large ones, LGB and ONT, receive commercial airliners.
30 lightsaber: I hope the new concourse provides the service at LGB fliers have expected. However, economics will dictate the decision and B6 has not been able to pu
31 greg3322: How many people live in the area served by these airports? 15 million? 20 million? Most of these airports have less than 5,000' runways. See my commen
32 Beardown91737: LGB isn't positioned to be a hub unless there is traffic going to Hawaii or Mexico. In that case it would be B6 with the traffic since all the legacie
33 jetbluefan1: I can imagine the cries of anger if B6 proposed customs facilities at LGB to enable Mexico/Central America flying. B6 would thrive, as it has found a
34 LAXintl: I don't know why you saying this. Is 40 odd airports not enough for GA traffic in LA basin? Also
35 UA787DEN: Does anyone else think LGB-Florida could work with West coast connections? Is too much of the service taken by their own LAX-FLL and all of the other
36 southwest737500: So you think LGB-HNL could be reality in the future
37 UA787DEN: I doubt LGB-HNL. I wouldn't doubt DEN, DFW or IAH, ORD, and Florida. But only if LGB does something to make themselves more attractive to B6
38 airliner371: They serve HOU not IAH, non the less, I highly doubt it.
39 UA787DEN: Thanks for correcting me! I doubt HOU. If and only if LGB gives them a few more slots and offers incentives, B6 might start one more Texan airport, on
40 ICEBIRD757: The airport is already aware that the airlines as a group would like customs as does the GA traffic. LGB-HNL, forget the whole Hawaii market from the
41 Flytravel: Just curious why HOU is on the doubt list, but DFW is good? I'd think both are good ideas- large markets, relatively the same length to LGB, thus wou
42 AADC10: I doubt it. LAX-Florida is marginal, with the exception of LAX-MIA on AA. While LAX is big enough to support non-stop flights to a number of Florida
43 flyby519: How about LGB-Mexico? Plausible for B6? Ive heard the new terminal construction is designed to handle international operations in the future.[Edited 2
44 Flytravel: It could optimize LGB to service DFW, HOU and maybe ABQ that are more regional, even if just 1x daily for these cities. These are markets with JFK on
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 594 posts, 
, 22062 posts, 
From South Korea, joined Jan 2005, 522 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
