I'm curious if, percentage-wise, LGB is now the fastest-growing airport in the U.S. due to all the new jetBlue service started over the past year?
Also, I think the article kind of misses the mark. I don't think of it so much as being jetBlue vs Southwest, as I think of it being jetBlue and Southwest (and AirTran and Frontier) vs. the full-service carriers.)
ONT 737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 576 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3029 times:
The article overdramatized (sp?) the situation. jetBlue's 9 flights in ONE California market and 6 flights to LAS is a mere drop in the bucket compared to Southwest's intra-California and LAS-California operations. This is not what I would call a "showdown" or "bloody bout", no one is going to get "knocked out". This is most likely just a temporary thing for jetblue anyway. It is highly unlikely that they will keep the OAK and LAS flights at their current high frequency. Its pretty obvious that they started the service to use up the slots quick and with as little aircraft possible. The article at least touched the reason behind jetBlue starting all this service at once...
"they have allowed JetBlue to quickly use a third of its 27 slots at Long Beach, staving off demands from American Airlines and Alaska Airlines that the city free up the slots"
Even if jetBlue used up all 25 of their slots at LGB (which they would never do) for upstate CA and LAS flights, they still would have a long way to go. They would need to open up more stations and enter more city pairs. Anyway, my guess is that jetBlue keeps LAS and OAK flights to LBG but at lower frequency in order to use the slots for more lucrative long haul flights once they have the planes to do so.
LoveFieldFlyer From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 80 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2985 times:
This article fails to mention that jetBlue has already reduced LGB-OAK flights by one-third (from 9 to 6 daily) and that LGB-LAS was originally planned for six daily flights and has been reduced to anywhere between three and five dailys depending on the day of the week.
Lindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3091 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2988 times:
I recently explored options for flying from JFK to LGB in November around Thanksgiving. Some of the flight possibilities that came up on Jet Blue were one-stop flights routed through Oakland. I ended up going for the nonstop, but it does show how JetBlue will try to fill some of those OAK-LGB flights.
ONT 737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 576 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2963 times:
Flights are also being routed through Long Beach as well as Oakland. Jetblue offers 2 daily LAS-LGB-JFK flights and 4 OAK-LGB-LAS flights. Heck, if you were so inclined they have one daily LAS-LGB-SLC. I guess they are doing anything they can to fill'em up.
FATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5743 posts, RR: 16 Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2943 times:
The Long Beach newspaper coverage yesterday spoke about the difference in flight schedules. JetBlue is now presenting it this way:
"Depending on the times of the week or peak demand, JetBlue operates a minimum of six daily flights to Oakland with room to expand to nine flights, and will run the five minimum daily flights to Vegas with room for an additional slot, said JetBlue spokesman Garth Edmondson-Jones." http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204%257E21478%257E914228,00.html?search=filter
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
ONT 737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 576 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2918 times:
"Depending on the times of theweek or peak demand, JetBlueoperates a minimum of six dailyflights to Oakland with room toexpand to nine flights, and willrun the five minimum daily flightsto Vegas with room for an additional slot, said JetBlue spokesman Garth Edmondson-Jones."
It sounds similar to the LGA-BOS-DCA shuttle service.... if the flight is full they roll out another jet for another flight. Is that what he means?
ONT 737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 576 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2898 times:
Jetblue has not announced any additional flights since cutting back on LGB-OAK and LAS-LGB so I can only guess that they would have the aircraft sitting around. I'm not sure what Neeleman would think about paying to have crews on standby though. However, it would be quite interesting if they did create a west coast shuttle modeled after DAL and US on the east cost. I'm sure that would shake some things up...
ScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2807 times:
Are they made giveing up more slots into LGB airports as for itself and didn't made it as for 3 flight from SEA to LGB by Horizon an CRJ-700 as for itself. And how is thing's were goes on as for Jetblue doing as for start new nonstop from LGB-LAS, and SLC flight, too. And it was completed against of SWA from BWI-LAX as for last months and also, how is thing were doing nonstop from IAD-LGB flight as for 2 daily roundtrip nonstop. Well, later!
Scottb From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6442 posts, RR: 33 Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2769 times:
"West Coast shuttle?" That would simply be insane. How do you compete with WN's 22 LAX-OAK flights (not to mention 14 BUR-OAK, 13 ONT-OAK, and 8 SNA-OAK, as well as AA & UA on LAX-SFO) flights when you only have 25 slots and you'd like to keep some of those for more profitable transcon service? Why pick a fight against the most profitable major carrier with the least debt and the lowest costs on routes which they dominate? Picking a fight with WN with a fare war is just bad business. Especially given that it's not clear that B6 has a cost advantage over WN on short-haul flights. While B6 does have a lower system CASM, they also have a considerably longer average stage length which lowers their CASM; that's why the financials occasionally refer to a stage-length-adjusted CASM.
I agree that the main motivation for jetBlue's LGB-OAK and LGB-LAS flights seems to be the maintenance of those LGB slots. Why else would you enter two markets that already have low fares and compete against several other carriers (at least 5 on LA-Basin-to-LAS -- AA, UA, WN, HP, N7)? If they wanted to be in the LAS-NYC market, it would make more sense from a cost perspective to fly LAS-JFK.
I wouldn't doubt that LGB is the fastest-growing U.S. airport by percentage for 2002, but that's skewed by its former status as a relaive backwater -- sort of like MHT was before WN started there. Once LGB hits its slot limit, though, you can expect passenger numbers to become relatively stagnant.
ScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2687 times:
Well, that is mostly as for United Shuttle were got shutdown as for after 9/11 with B737-300/500 aircraft as for the west coast intra flight. It was no longer use there and right now they are made as for CRJ only by the shorter flight. Also, I need your answer about with the those airlines were service nonstop to L.A. is: LGB, BUR, SNA, ONT and LAX flight as for itself.
If they are made keeping fighting with Jetblue by after SWA, UA, AA, or etc. It could be give up as for the more slots into LGB or anywhere at the airports by near LAX. If you are have anything a questions and please let us know about something as for goes on. Well, thanks!!
FATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5743 posts, RR: 16 Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2626 times:
I wouldn't expect that JB is creating a west coast shuttle for the long term but temporarily it does make for a good strategic and marketing ploy. If the "placeholder" flights are not filling up you can continue to fly all the slots to protect them until other routes are started (and lose money faster) OR you can fly some and say the others are flown when demand is warranted, a la a "Shuttle". The second option is better spin than simply saying that you are not using the slots at all.
Will somebody challenge the concept that the slots at LGB are not being used? Probably but AA is now getting exactly the number of slots they asked for earlier so it would be hard to ask for more unless they can show 90%+ loads at LGB.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain