PROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5519 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2641 times:
Nothing's been announced. B6 seems to be following a fairly cautious strategy when it comes to expansion, being mindful of the dangers that too-fast growth can pose, and in any event Chicago's not likely to be an easy market to enter what with all the competition. Even so, that commercial is hard to ignore.
"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
Pilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days ago) and read 2523 times:
JetBlue has finished expanding for this year and possibly next year too. Neeleman is going to be increasing frequencies to/from their LGB focus city and also better connecting it to their route network.
In addition, he's also going to be building up FLL too and connecting that to their route network as well.
There is a very high probability that he will be announcing FLL-LGB in the near future.
Usairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3234 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days ago) and read 2518 times:
sorry Pilot1113 but you kinda controdicted your self. first you said they probably won't expand for a while(this year and next), but then you go on to say that FLL-LGB will be announced sometime in the coming months and that FLL will see some more service.
I have heard that Jetblue will proably announce a few new destinations sometime next year like around the spring time, but one never knows.
ScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days ago) and read 2492 times:
What cities will be announce a new destinations cities by sometime as for near year?? And can you please tell me about goes on as for Jetblue want get expands as for more new nonstop near of the future. Just tell us about exactly were doing as for the passengers is doing well. Well, later!!
Md80spirit From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2236 times:
Spirit has been waiting for more slots in ord, and they have been promised. Unless jetblue uses ord for more than ,chi town should be put on the back burner untill they dig in out west and show southwest they can go head to head.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2223 times:
Why ORD? I thought Neelman has an aversion for congested airports- thats why he chose JFK over LGA or Newark. Midway may be a better bet.
I also wouldn't discount other possibilities -
1.Gary - poor road access, poor bet.
2.Rockford - good dark horse candidat - good facilities. Allot of the population in the western subburbs is close to Rockford and far away from the other airports. It is also close to Madison, WI. Rockford combined with Madison and the farther west Chicago suburbs is a large underserved market.
3. Milwaukee. A large city in its own right, it is reasonably close to the Northern suburbs. But, as with Rockford, it is far away enough to deter Chicago business travelers. Also, it is a bit of a risk to be compared to Midwest Express service.
If I were them, I'd choose Midway. Or Rockford if no gates/etc. were available in Midway. But I don't know what Neelman knows...
Jeff G From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 431 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2205 times:
But how will JetBlue manouver to get ORD slots
Slots are going away at ORD. Gates are another matter.
chi town should be put on the back burner untill they dig in out west and show southwest they can go head to head
That was never the intention. The OAK-LGB shuttle was only to consume slots, not try to prove anything vs. LUV.
Midway may be a better bet.
Midway is a very bad idea for operational reasons. You can't physically get a fully loaded and gassed A320 out of there and take it to the West Coast. You have to block seat rows and effectively turn the airplane into a 120 seat plane, and what's the point of that? The longest available landing distance is about 6000 feet. With a little slush or standing water on the runway, an A320 at max landing weight couldn't land at all, and would have to divert. Not much point in that either. If Chicago happens, it won't be Midway.
CcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2212 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2180 times:
There is congestion at MDW now. There was a article in the paper about the congestion at MDW and they have delays now. Also is the gate situatuon with SWA and ATA making all these new flights. Also from the other airlines expanding service has made it congested.
"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2086 times:
Jeff G -
I don't doubt ya when you say A320 opperations would be a problem in Midway. Just a couple non-rhetorical questions...
How come SWA is doing new 737 non-stops to the west coast, though? And what about ATA's 737-800's? Is the 737 that different performance wise from the A320 or are they accepting payload limitations of some sort?
Didn't know Midway was getting that congested. Perhaps Gary or Rockford or Milwaukee are the only ways out of that problem....
Jeff G From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 431 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2059 times:
A couple of points. JetBlue's aircraft carry more pax than SWA's airplanes (either 25 or 40 more, depending on the 737 model), both in terms of capacity and system load factor. I'm not sure what performance numbers they use at SWA for longer hauls, but they may be blocking seats as well. As a guesstimate, I figure that an A320 could carry about 120 pax plus bags out of MDW before being performance limited on takeoff. For a 122 seat airplane (or a 137 seat airplane only 70% full) it's not a big deal, but it is for a 162 seat plane that's often sold to capacity. The runways are just too short.
The B-757 is has a higher power-to-weight ratio than the A320, so it's not as performance limited on takeoff. It may well be able to haul a full load out of MDW, but it's also more expensive to operate.
MDW might be adequate for A320 short hauls, but if the plan is to connect Chicago to both JFK and LGB, which seems likely, it's not an adequate field.
Since JetBlue is not committed to one particular airport, it only makes sense to pick one with the right location and the right operational facilities. While that doesn't necessarily mean ORD, it does leave out MDW.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7860 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2043 times:
I'm not sure if B6 flying to Chicago is a good idea.
This is because I have doubts B6 can compete against both UA and AA on the ORD-LGA flights; both UA and AA have a large number of flights between ORD and LGA per day. B6's potential JFK-ORD service might not cater well to the people living in New York City, since LGA is a lot closer to Manhattan than JFK.
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (11 years 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2039 times:
"now that i think about it, how bout terminal 5 gates M1-M5 are now domestic flights only spirit used em before they moved to terminal 3 north american/el al and usa 3000 use em now with ua and aa"
Ok what the???????? First of all Spirit never went to Terminal 3.... I was in T-5 last week and they are still there... Ive seen North American park at T-3 and T-5....as it isnt even a International flight. USA3000, UA, AA and other foreign carriers most notably Air Canada and Mexicana will use 1-5..
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (11 years 2 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1979 times:
So have I,
But that dosent mean they moved there.
AFAIK they park at T-5 deplane pax and park over at T-3 for outgoing flights. From what ive heard is that they do this to let Apple Vacations use those gates when they fly in from International flights.
Its the same deal with Iberia at T-3 and LH at T-1
25 Mlsrar: 3. Milwaukee. A large city in its own right, it is reasonably close to the Northern suburbs. But, as with Rockford, it is far away enough to deter Chi
26 LOT767-300ER: " is the &*( $@$# Illinois Tollway...pay to get in, pay to get out!" Tell me about it. I live right next to the DAMN *$)(@*)($*@)(@$ in Schaumburg. Ml
27 Mlsrar: ...Traffic and Weather together on the '8s. "Outbound Stevenson's packed, Kennedy and Ryan as well...79 minutes, downtown to O'Hare..." (I'm paraphras
28 ORD Boy 2: LOT they moved to t3 drive around the little drive for t-1 to t3 right after the delta sign there is a spirit sign i flew naa/el al from jfk they park
29 LOT767-300ER: "LOT they moved to t3 drive around the little drive for t-1 to t3 right after the delta sign there is a spirit sign i flew naa/el al from jfk they par
30 AASTEW: I thought ATA flew loaded L1011's into MDW some time ago. Those planes are much ever than an A320. Someone from ATA please inform us! I believe the A3
31 Jeff G: I thought ATA flew loaded L1011's into MDW some time ago. Those planes are much ever than an A320. I believe the A320 would have no problem operating
32 Besttravel: NK is officially operating out of T3 at ORD. No more T5!!!! Also, JetBlue would be crazy to launch JFK-CHI service; the NYC-CHI market is saturated wi
33 CactusA319: ATA never flew L1011's to MDW. At least not regular pax flights. The gates at the old terminal couldn't handle anything bigger than a 757 (and only a
34 Scottb: I imagine that there was likely some discussion between WN and Boeing while the 737NG (and specifically the -700, as WN was the launch customer) was u