FA4B6
Topic Author
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:00 am

JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:26 am

JetBlue seeking alliances
Airline looking to expand its travel offerings by partnering with international carriers

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet...icle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137834649007
"Leap! And the net will appear."
 
User avatar
freakydeaky
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:04 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:58 am

I think this would be very interesting and would be a resounding success. Neeleman must have some creative way to make it work in mind.

With the advent of the Air Train, getting around JFK is a breeze - so the people moving logistics are in place - the bags would be the "row to hoe."
"Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could."
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11747
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:59 am

Recall that Neeleman has made a big deal that these "alliances" be on B6's terms:
e.g. the other airline brings luggage to B6 and take the luggage back over to their terminal.

from the link:

Quote:

Dervin would not name the carriers involved in the talks, but there are more than 100 international carriers at JFK. She stressed that any new partnerships would be different than traditional strategic alliances many American carriers have for overseas service. Those allow passengers to book flights on one airline yet transfer to a second airline for overseas destinations.

"We're working on a new way to make it as seamless as possible," she said.

A seemless connection would be ideal.

Quote:
"I'd believe JetBlue would not enter a traditional 'code share'" with other airlines, said Darryl Jenkins, an airport consultant and former director of the Aviation Institute at George Washington University. "The term in use is 'marketing alliance.' You do things to increase traffic but not increase cost."

 checkmark  B6 is doing quite a bit to up the RASM. This could result in a very interesting "our cities" page very soon!

But this is old news. Oh, it will be a big deal when a partnership is announced. But until then...

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:16 am

This is quite a 180 degree turnaround for JetBlue.

I personally know they have been approached by several foreign operators these last few years for various relationships which Jetblue turned down on grounds of not wanting to complicate its business model, and also on grounds of IT intraface issues.

It seems Jetblue maybe finally has realised it sits on a valuable connection franchise particularly at JFK, and can derive incremental revenues while also drawing connection passengers away from flying the likes as AA & DL.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
mbm3
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:54 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:23 am

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 3):
It seems Jetblue maybe finally has realised it sits on a valuable connection franchise particularly at JFK, and can derive incremental revenues while also drawing connection passengers away from flying the likes as AA & DL.

I think you could add CO to this list as well. This could have an impact on international connections at EWR considering the number of similar domestic routes.
Let Me Tell You, Landing A 772ER Is Harder Than It Looks!
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:08 am

There is definitely some great revenue potential if B6 plays their cards right...

JetBluefan1
 
hawk44
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:54 pm

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:11 am

Could this be in response to DL's new hub in JFK  stirthepot 

Hawk44
Never under estimate the power of US
 
Zone1
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:47 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:45 am

The article mentions VS as a possible alliance partner. I would agree if it wasn't for Virgin America coming online soon. I can't believe Branson would want to hand over plane full of passengers to JetBlue when they could fly Virgin America.
/// U N I T E D
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:57 am

Quoting Hawk44 (Reply 6):
Could this be in response to DL's new hub in JFK

The fact that JetBlue was looking at alliances was actually revealed before DL announced their new "hub". However, I could see B6 possibly investing more money and time into something like this as a result.

JetBluefan1
 
belizexp
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:56 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 am

B6 will be just like a UA,AA,DL,US,NW and CO in the near future bottom line is as a US Airlines you need to go where the money is and that Oversea.
Belize my home sweet home...
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:17 am

Quoting Belizexp (Reply 9):
B6 will be just like a UA,AA,DL,US,NW and CO in the near future bottom line is as a US Airlines you need to go where the money is and that Oversea.

Not necessarily. WN is highly profitable and they don't operate anywhere out of the U.S - except with the ATA code share, which has very few international flights.

I think B6 could benefit handsomely from this because of its route map. Because B6 is based at JFK, which has about the same amount of domestic volume as it does international, it can easily take advantage of connecting opportunities with some European airlines. B6 flies to BUF, ROC, SYR, BTV, PWM, and these airports don't have service overseas. As B6 expands to small- and mid-sized cities such as those listed, international carriers will also find advantages to routing people through B6. It's a win/win/win - for B6, the international carrier, and the consumer.

The airlines that would hurt from this would most likely be those with with considerable international networks. Flying B6 from PWM-JFK and Iberia from JFK-MAD will be another option on a long list of PWM-XXX-MAD's, but if it's priced and timed correctly, this could be a major profit-maker.

JetBluefan1
 
panamair
Posts: 3759
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 2:24 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:32 am

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 10):
As B6 expands to small- and mid-sized cities such as those listed, international carriers will also find advantages to routing people through B6. It's a win/win/win - for B6, the international carrier, and the consumer.

How would it work with the premium cabin passengers from the international carrier? Why wouldn't the carrier face the same situation as DL did with Song, i.e., a full-fare F/J paying passenger from Europe to JFK is not going to be too amused sitting in a Y (potentially middle) seat from JFK to BUR or OAK or LGB after crossing the pond in a lie-flat seat. As good as people think B6's Coach service is, it is still Coach...

[Edited 2006-03-13 23:43:06]
 
OttoPylit
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:58 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:34 am

I wonder what Jetblue's plan for this is, since its common knowledge that interline agreements drive up airline costs(the reason that WN has none). Being that Jetblue's honeymoon is now over and its realizing growing pains, is Neeleman intentionally trying to drive up his airline's costs? Being that he has never worked with an airline that HAD interline agreements, I guess you can't really expect him to know that. The article clearly stated that if it were to happen, costs would rise, but the return would be minimal.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 2):
Recall that Neeleman has made a big deal that these "alliances" be on B6's terms:
e.g. the other airline brings luggage to B6 and take the luggage back over to their terminal.

Interesting. So now, its not a "marketing partnership", but its a "Jetblue marketing ship", easily cutting out the 'partner' part of it. For a partnership to work, both airlines have to work together, otherwise it will unfold very quickly. Ever heard the term, "It takes two to tango?" Same concept. If Jetblue thinks that other airlines will cater to "their" whims for a partnership, they are sorely mistaken. Why should an airline like VS do all the work, when they can partner with a bigger airline, with many more destinations, and that is actually willing to work with the international airline, instead of make that airline do all the work? Such as if VS wanted to partner with any legacy airline, like DL, NW, etc.

Neeleman's plan of the partnership being on Jetblue's terms isn't very sporting, IMO.



OttoPylit
I don't have a microwave, but I do have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24522
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:38 am

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 10):
WN is highly profitable and they don't operate anywhere out of the U.S - except with the ATA code share, which has very few international flights.

WN does not codeshare on ATA's international routes, which are only Cancun and Guadalajara.
a.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11747
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:17 am

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 12):

Neeleman's plan of the partnership being on Jetblue's terms isn't very sporting, IMO.

Sporting or not, that is what Neeleman stated. Note: it could just be the start of negotiations.  spin 

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:05 am

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 12):
Neeleman's plan of the partnership being on Jetblue's terms isn't very sporting, IMO.

I agree that this isn't all too attractive to the international airline. However, if it means getting a $500 fare instead of giving it to DL, I'm sure they'd be willing to work by B6's rules. Keep in mind that B6 is the one being approached by other airlines -- B6 hasn't approached anyone.

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 12):
I wonder what Jetblue's plan for this is, since its common knowledge that interline agreements drive up airline costs(the reason that WN has none).

Since B6 stated that any interline agreement will be on their terms, not the other airline's, this will not significantly increase costs. In any case, any costs that are incurred (which would be very limited because the international airline would be responsible for delivering the luggage, according to Neeleman) would be offset by increased revenue.

I think this will work out well for B6. JFK has a plethora of international airlines, and as B6 expands to more cities, I'd expect those airlines to find JetBlue more and more attractive.

JetBluefan1
 
OttoPylit
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:58 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:56 am

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 15):
Keep in mind that B6 is the one being approached by other airlines -- B6 hasn't approached anyone.

No? Where does it say that in the article? With the exception of Neeleman saying, "There are a lot of people interested in our network", that doesn't exactly mean other airlines, so its a little ambiguous there. Other than that, I don't see anything in the article stating that B6 is being approached. It did say that Virgin, Air India, and Maxjet all want feed on both sides of the Atlantic, but didn't say that B6 was approached. So who is approaching B6?

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 15):
I agree that this isn't all too attractive to the international airline. However, if it means getting a $500 fare instead of giving it to DL, I'm sure they'd be willing to work by B6's rules.

For who, Jetblue or the international airline? Most of the international airlines in question do not compete directly or heavily with DL on any routes, so that can't be it. And its not going to help Jetblue very much, as DL already has interline agreements with all(except MY) of these airlines, and most of the trans-Atlantic carriers really don't care who gets the person to the gateway city, whether its B6 or DL, or even Amtrak, as long as they get there.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 15):
I agree that this isn't all too attractive to the international airline.



Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 15):
Since B6 stated that any interline agreement will be on their terms, not the other airline's, this will not significantly increase costs. In any case, any costs that are incurred (which would be very limited because the international airline would be responsible for delivering the luggage, according to Neeleman) would be offset by increased revenue.

So tell me, why should ANY airline(but we'll use VS for example) even give B6 the time of day then? If I am VS, YOU want an interline agreement with me, but in order to offset YOUR costs(as if we at VS care), you want ME to increase MY costs by covering YOUR part of the agreement? Therefore, any B6 customers transferring to VS, you want me to have to hire more people to pick up the bags from your side of the airport, and for any passengers transferring from VS to B6, you want me to have those people also bring the bags over? Well, whenever we work with USAir, their people bring the bags to us when connecting onto VS, and we bring the bags to them when connecting to USAir. So why should I cover your part of the agreement? It doesn't make sense. It sounds like Neeleman is trying to play hardball in a contest that he really doesn't have much ground to hold onto.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 15):
I think this will work out well for B6. JFK has a plethora of international airlines, and as B6 expands to more cities, I'd expect those airlines to find JetBlue more and more attractive.

But how is that when:

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 15):
I agree that this isn't all too attractive to the international airline.

Neeleman's argument is going to have to be changed quite heavily before any trans-Atlantic carrier negotiates anything.

Also, many of these airlines, especially those with 1 or 2 flights from JFK, are outsourced to other airlines, like AA and DL. And those airlines can't afford to increase their costs anymore, obviously.



OttoPylit
I don't have a microwave, but I do have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:32 pm

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 16):
No? Where does it say that in the article? With the exception of Neeleman saying, "There are a lot of people interested in our network", that doesn't exactly mean other airlines, so its a little ambiguous there. Other than that, I don't see anything in the article stating that B6 is being approached. It did say that Virgin, Air India, and Maxjet all want feed on both sides of the Atlantic, but didn't say that B6 was approached. So who is approaching B6?

The article means nothing. The press conferences that have occurred over the last two months confirm that JetBlue has always been the one approached. Neeleman claims that there wasn't much discussion in past years because JetBlue didn't fly to the smaller cities that interested international airlines, but as the E190s come on board, they are looking to "hook up" with B6.

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 16):
For who, Jetblue or the international airline? Most of the international airlines in question do not compete directly or heavily with DL on any routes, so that can't be it. And its not going to help Jetblue very much, as DL already has interline agreements with all(except MY) of these airlines, and most of the trans-Atlantic carriers really don't care who gets the person to the gateway city, whether its B6 or DL, or even Amtrak, as long as they get there.

The $500 would mostly be going to the international carrier as it is obviously offering more service. It doesn't cost B6 $500 to carry someone from Rochester to JFK...

Also, my reference to DL wasn't meant just for DL. Keep in mind that international airlines also have to compete with AA, CO, and all other trans-Atlantic airlines that fly out of the East Coast. Remember that to a customer, it doesn't matter if they fly PWM-ORD-MAD, or PWM-JFK-MAD. Therefore, this is competition on a much broader scale. This is not just competition out of the New York market, and it's also not just competition with US airlines.

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 16):
So tell me, why should ANY airline(but we'll use VS for example) even give B6 the time of day then? If I am VS, YOU want an interline agreement with me, but in order to offset YOUR costs(as if we at VS care), you want ME to increase MY costs by covering YOUR part of the agreement? Therefore, any B6 customers transferring to VS, you want me to have to hire more people to pick up the bags from your side of the airport, and for any passengers transferring from VS to B6, you want me to have those people also bring the bags over? Well, whenever we work with USAir, their people bring the bags to us when connecting onto VS, and we bring the bags to them when connecting to USAir. So why should I cover your part of the agreement? It doesn't make sense. It sounds like Neeleman is trying to play hardball in a contest that he really doesn't have much ground to hold onto.

Airlines such as VS have already set up shop at JFK. For example, VS offers 3 (?) flights a day to JFK, which is the most they offer to any single US airport. Considering that B6 is based at JFK, this allows VS and B6 to have many more connection opportunities. If it means the difference between getting someone on your plane instead of a competitor's, I don't think the cost of moving a bag from Terminal 6 to Terminal 4 is going to change much. Revenue is revenue. If it costs $10/hr to have someone driving back and forth between the two terminals, so be it. It's well worth it when you're getting more traffic.

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 16):
Neeleman's argument is going to have to be changed quite heavily before any trans-Atlantic carrier negotiates anything.

Once again, JetBlue has been approached time and again by international airlines. If other airliens want it badly enough, they will abide by JetBlue's ways. JFK is the only airport that some international airlines fly to in the US. Therefore, such an ageement could be more lucrative for such an airline.

I reiterate my opinion that this will work out for JetBlue once everything is said and done. While the international carriers may not necessarily like the terms of agreement, I think they will find increased revenue as a result.

JetBluefan1
 
COERJ145
Posts: 1140
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:22 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:36 pm

I'd think F9 would be a good choice. Both have similar products, and F9 has a good presence in the west coast and mexico.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:50 pm

Quoting Zone1 (Reply 7):
The article mentions VS as a possible alliance partner. I would agree if it wasn't for Virgin America coming online soon. I can't believe Branson would want to hand over plane full of passengers to JetBlue when they could fly Virgin America.

VS runs code shares with CO, and with B6 entering EWR, not sure how well that would sit with CO to have B6 align with VS, a competitor at a "competing airport" in the same market.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:33 pm

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 15):
I agree that this isn't all too attractive to the international airline. However, if it means getting a $500 fare instead of giving it to DL, I'm sure they'd be willing to work by B6's rules. Keep in mind that B6 is the one being approached by other airlines -- B6 hasn't approached anyone.

I think the only candidates are Star carriers and independents. Oneworld carriers have AA and Skyteam has DL. Star is weak at NYC international airports.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 19):
VS runs code shares with CO, and with B6 entering EWR, not sure how well that would sit with CO to have B6 align with VS, a competitor at a "competing airport" in the same market.

Maybe they will push the Feds to do something about Bermuda II.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
FlyDeltaJets
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:50 pm

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 16):
Therefore, any B6 customers transferring to VS, you want me to have to hire more people to pick up the bags from your side of the airport

At JFK a company called Triangle handles interline bags for the entire airport.
The only valid opinions are those based in facts
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:22 pm

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 21):
At JFK a company called Triangle handles interline bags for the entire airport.

But airlines pay for it. So does B6 want the partner to pay for it in both directions?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
txagkuwait
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 1999 7:39 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:30 pm

Jet Blue still has a long way to go before they would be put on "bankruptcy watch" but you have to wonder what the hell Neeleman is thinking.

For the last 25 years or so we've seen new entrants come and new entrants go and many of them had one thing in common:

They all said something "we want to be like Southwest (ie profitable) but we want to _______ (fill in blank, with something like: went to assign seats, we want to offer First Class, we want to interline with other carriers, we want a commuter code share partner, we want a different sized airplane for thin routes, etc etc etc)

JetBlue wanted to be like Southwest - ie profitable - but they wanted Airbuses not Boeings, they wanted to be somewhat upscale with assigned seats, they wanted to grow faster than WN did, they wanted to function as more of a hub and spoke carrier, they had to have that Embraer, so on and so forth.

The airline business may be one of those deals where you just can't have it all. And going in for widespread interlining is just another way JetBlue says adios to their original business model as they traipse down the path of financially plagued airlines.
 
flyboyaz
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:32 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:13 am

It's a great idea considering where their main hub is. TONS of international traffic coming in. Would make perfect sense to interline with certain major international carriers to spread their pax across the US.

Jetblue is starting to see some financial hurdles but in the long run I think they will continue to be successful...Neelman is a good businessman.
Catch a ride on a smile!
 
mia
Posts: 813
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 1:40 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:59 am

Avianca used to promote JetBlue on their website as offering excellent connections from FLL to the rest of the U.S.

I am glad JetBlue wants to extend their reach, they are an excellent airline and I wish them a lot of luck. I also wish they would fill in the gap Delta left in TLH when they stopped JFK flights!
"Like all great travelers, I have seen more than I remember, and remember more than I have seen."
 
ChiGB1973
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:39 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:26 am

I see those blue planes going Virgin.

Bye bye B6, hello Virgin America.

M
 
ca2ohHP
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:14 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:36 am

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 16):
So tell me, why should ANY airline(but we'll use VS for example) even give B6 the time of day then? If I am VS, YOU want an interline agreement with me, but in order to offset YOUR costs(as if we at VS care), you want ME to increase MY costs by covering YOUR part of the agreement? Therefore, any B6 customers transferring to VS, you want me to have to hire more people to pick up the bags from your side of the airport, and for any passengers transferring from VS to B6, you want me to have those people also bring the bags over? Well, whenever we work with USAir, their people bring the bags to us when connecting onto VS, and we bring the bags to them when connecting to USAir. So why should I cover your part of the agreement? It doesn't make sense. It sounds like Neeleman is trying to play hardball in a contest that he really doesn't have much ground to hold onto.

Funny you should mention bags. I've found UA in IAD, DEN, ORD is the absolute worst at transferring bags to other airlines. The monthly DOT baggage complaints are not necessarily a reflection of that individual carrier, but a failure on the part of an upline carrier.
 
MiCorazonAzul
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:25 am

Quoting COERJ145 (Reply 18):
I'd think F9 would be a good choice. Both have similar products, and F9 has a good presence in the west coast and mexico.

While I could see an alliance with Frontier, the alliances Neeleman is talking about is with international carriers. Because we are HUGE in JFK, an alliance with an international carrier would be great.

Btw, the only reason why I see an alliance with Frontier is because they are huge on the west and we are the same but on the east. Of course also because of the smiliarity of service (PTVs). It would be the best of both coasts partnering up. Besides, we already do Frontier's ramp work at RSW... Big grin
Live for Today.....tomorrow is NOT guaranteed.
 
OttoPylit
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:58 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:33 am

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 17):
Airlines such as VS have already set up shop at JFK. For example, VS offers 3 (?) flights a day to JFK, which is the most they offer to any single US airport. Considering that B6 is based at JFK, this allows VS and B6 to have many more connection opportunities. If it means the difference between getting someone on your plane instead of a competitor's, I don't think the cost of moving a bag from Terminal 6 to Terminal 4 is going to change much. Revenue is revenue. If it costs $10/hr to have someone driving back and forth between the two terminals, so be it. It's well worth it when you're getting more traffic.

But your missing the point here. What does VS gain out of this? Virgin already has passengers. Virgin is already making money. Virgin is in no dire need to get more revenue for such a cost. Sure, you can never have too many passengers knocking down your door, but lets face it, this interline agreement isn't going to cause a flood of people to be booking VS and B6. In actuality, the agreement will get little to no press coverage and the actual amount of passengers carried will be minimal. Yet, B6 is telling these other airlines, "Hey, you wanna work with us, you gotta play by our rules." But what ground does B6 hold to demand that? VS can extend their passengers to final destinations with DL, AA, etc., whereas B6 doesn't have the power to do that in the other direction. Basically, without repeating what I said earlier, B6 expects the other airlines to increase their costs for minimal return, whereas making it easier and more profitable for B6 as compared to the other carrier. That would be like me telling a stranger at a vending machine, "There is one bag of Doritos left. Why don't you buy it for me, and I will share it with you." Do you think that person is going to help out, when someone else is standing beside to the other side with an open bag of chips and offering them a handful.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 17):
The press conferences that have occurred over the last two months confirm that JetBlue has always been the one approached.

Of course your going to sweeten the talk for the shareholders. God forbid they don't believe you and start selling. So that doesn't mean anything. I think its actually the other way around.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 17):
The $500 would mostly be going to the international carrier as it is obviously offering more service. It doesn't cost B6 $500 to carry someone from Rochester to JFK...

So you saying B6 would be working for free...? The $500 is split up between the carriers, as to who is pricing more, etc. For $500(of which it would most likely be more), $150 would go to B6, as thats what they would price from BUF-JFK and $350 would go to VS as that would be their fare from JFK-LHR.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 17):
Once again, JetBlue has been approached time and again by international airlines. If other airliens want it badly enough, they will abide by JetBlue's ways.

But thats the thing, they WON'T it that bad. The partnership isn't a lucrative cash cow as you(or Neeleman) want it to sound. Keep in mind, this isn't EL AL/North American Airlines. This is a simple marketing agreement. Nothing more.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 17):
Therefore, such an ageement could be more lucrative for such an airline.

But it won't be. Thats what I'm trying to point out. And if someone was flying VS and wanted to connect to smaller cities in the US, VS already has a plethora of airlines they could connect with, so why cater with the smaller Jetblue and abide by Jetblue's terms? For instance, lets say someone is flying VS from CPT-LHR-JFK-SEA. They obviously need an OAL connection in JFK. VS can currently put them on any of the major airlines that fly nonstop from JFK-SEA. So they could fly the passenger CPT-LHR-JFK on VS and then connect the person JFK-SEA on DL or AA without having to abide to B6's silly rule game. Secondly, all these airlines offer hundreds of more destinations as compared to B6 as well.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 17):
While the international carriers may not necessarily like the terms of agreement, I think they will find increased revenue as a result.

Trust me, they won't. I understand what you would like to see, but I don't think you can see the intricate details of what would be needed or how it would happen.

Quoting Ca2ohHP (Reply 27):
The monthly DOT baggage complaints are not necessarily a reflection of that individual carrier, but a failure on the part of an upline carrier.

Agreed. When I was a baggage service agent, I found AA the worst from MIA and NW from MSP. I don't know if its just the airport layouts or the fact that the upline carrier doesn't care when the bags are transferred. After all, delivery costs and expenses don't come out of their pockets.


OttoPylit
I don't have a microwave, but I do have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5375
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:08 am

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 16):
Therefore, any B6 customers transferring to VS, you want me to have to hire more people to pick up the bags from your side of the airport, and for any passengers transferring from VS to B6, you want me to have those people also bring the bags over? Well, whenever we work with USAir, their people bring the bags to us when connecting onto VS, and we bring the bags to them when connecting to USAir. So why should I cover your part of the agreement?

Just to clarify up front, Otto - this is not an argument to your point. Just a thought.

What if B6 says to, say, VS, "Hey, since you've got the bagrunners who already go back and forth all over the airport, and they know how to find us, why don't we cut you an extra [percentage or dollar figure] of the revenue-sharing to handle it both ways? Why have guys passing each other on the tarmac anyways?"

From the outside, it seems to me to make more sense. I'm certainly open to correction.

-Dave
-Dave
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:11 pm

OttoPylit,

You see things your way. I see things mine. I think this will be a good move for B6. You don't. I don't blame you.

I'm a B6 shareholder and am very optimistic. Sure, I'm biased, but I also have a lot of faith in B6 because of the superior product they offer, the potential they have already shown, and their extremely well-positioned stance for future growth out of the largest aviation market in the U.S. Does that mean B6 is perfect? Certainly not. Do I think things can be done better? Of course. But at the end of the day, I'm happy with all that B6 has accomplished and I feel that creating an alliance with international carriers would be beneficial to them.

I also know that you work for DL, and just recently DL announced new routes in order to gain feed for its complex international network out of JFK. DL could lose some revenue if JetBlue does create such an alliance, and therefore I can see your bias. However, to say that the international airlines won't benefit is incorrect, in my opinion. Sure, there will be some fractional costs associated with transferring someone's luggage from Terminal 4 to Terminal 6, and it will cost a measily $1 to print out the boarding pass and baggage tags. However, the additional revenue will more than make up for that. Remember that most revenue taken in by such an agreement would be revenue that would have went to the competition.

Just for argument's sake, you said:

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 29):
For instance, lets say someone is flying VS from CPT-LHR-JFK-SEA. They obviously need an OAL connection in JFK. VS can currently put them on any of the major airlines that fly nonstop from JFK-SEA. So they could fly the passenger CPT-LHR-JFK on VS and then connect the person JFK-SEA on DL or AA without having to abide to B6's silly rule game.

Who ever said anything about SEA? That's a primary air traffic market in the U.S and most certainly cannot be compared to smaller cities such as PWM and ROC. As B6 adds flights to smaller cities as it gets its E190s, AA and DL will not be able to give VS (and other international carriers) the connections that the passengers want via JFK. Remember that JFK is a VERY valuable asset as it has higher amounts of frequency of international flights as compared to airports like DET, not to mention the outstanding number of international airlines that serve it.

In the end, all we can both do is speculate. Both you and I have made arguments and backed up our points. Now we just have to sit and wait and see what happens.

Best,

JetBluefan1
 
FA4B6
Topic Author
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:00 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:03 am

Jazz Air Seeks to Fly for U.S. Carriers, Chief Randell Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=aept_ojO4FDc
"Leap! And the net will appear."
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:12 am

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 31):
Remember that JFK is a VERY valuable asset as it has higher amounts of frequency of international flights as compared to airports like DET, not to mention the outstanding number of international airlines that serve it.

How does Saudi Arabian or South African serving JFK help VS? VS flying to EWR to connect people on CO is no less valuable, if customers aren't stopping in New York anyway.

Now if you are saying the JFK is the more coveted airport for international pax to fly into for the New York market, you are right, though I've never understood why as a long time resident of the area.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:07 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 33):
How does Saudi Arabian or South African serving JFK help VS? VS flying to EWR to connect people on CO is no less valuable, if customers aren't stopping in New York anyway.

I never meant that. However, it's better for the international carrier. Why? JFK has extremely high O&D demand, which is why most international airlines fly multiple frequencies to JFK, or even fly to JFK at all. As there are more flights available at JFK for these airlines, it makes more convenient connections for passengers as compared to other connecting points, such as DET, which sees less diversity and frequency from international airlines.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 33):
Now if you are saying the JFK is the more coveted airport for international pax to fly into for the New York market, you are right, though I've never understood why as a long time resident of the area.

I never thought of that. I guess if you're from Dubai and have flown into JFK before, you may prefer to fly in there once again. I think the reason that so many international pax love JFK is because both Terminal 1 and 4 are very European-esque; everytime I enter either one of those terminals, I feel like I'm in London rather than New York City.

Then again, I've never been to ORD, DET, DFW either, so I don't know how those international facilities are either.

jetBluefan1
 
airman99o
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 1999 4:15 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:51 am

not sure if this was mentioned. but there is Talk about WestJet forming an alliance with some international carriers as well. Read that in a magazine on the flight the other day.

Airman99o
Safety is Everyones Responsibility.
 
MalpensaSFO
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:17 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:14 am

Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 29):
lets say someone is flying VS from CPT-LHR-JFK-SEA

Why wouldnt they chose CPT-LHR-SEA?  wink 
TO FLY IS TO SERVE
 
ca2ohHP
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:14 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:48 am

Neelman blew it. He should have worked out an agreement with Branson when he had the chance.
 
OttoPylit
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:58 am

RE: JetBlue Seeking Alliances

Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:21 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 30):
What if B6 says to, say, VS, "Hey, since you've got the bagrunners who already go back and forth all over the airport, and they know how to find us, why don't we cut you an extra [percentage or dollar figure] of the revenue-sharing to handle it both ways? Why have guys passing each other on the tarmac anyways?"

Thats certainly a possibility, but only if B6 is willing to part with the revenue. I'm guessing they are not willing, since they want the agreement to be "on their terms"(i.e.-to not let us lose any money). Keep in mind, this agreement will have minimal revenue impact for both carriers, so any of that revenue that does come in, Jetblue will want to hold onto as much of it as they can. Your idea is certainly logical and understandable, but from what Neeleman stated, they are not willing to let go of any of that cash, if possible. Not to mention the fact that the revenue that Jetblue would have to give up, would basically be paying Virgin's $10/hr bagrunner to work 8 hrs a day every day of the year.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 31):
But at the end of the day, I'm happy with all that B6 has accomplished and I feel that creating an alliance with international carriers would be beneficial to them.

Certainly understandable. I'm just recommending that you look at everything with eye's wide open. With what Neeleman wants right now, its not gonna work that way. He will have to cave in quite a bit before anything is inked.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 31):
I also know that you work for DL, and just recently DL announced new routes in order to gain feed for its complex international network out of JFK. DL could lose some revenue if JetBlue does create such an alliance, and therefore I can see your bias.

Trust me, there is no bias there. Note that whenever I recommended other airlines in my posts, I used other large JFK carriers, and stated AA and DL. Otherwise, I would have just used DL if I were trying to turn it into a B6/DL argument. I'm just telling you from someone who works for a worldwide carrier how things will work and to not get your hopes up. You can believe it if you want or not.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 31):
Sure, there will be some fractional costs associated with transferring someone's luggage from Terminal 4 to Terminal 6, and it will cost a measily $1 to print out the boarding pass and baggage tags.

Add up how much it will take to cover the expenses of that additional bagrunner(you would actually need at least 3) for a year and you will see that the cost is anything but fractional, it adds up to almost $21,000 a year per bagrunner. Is that fractional? And like I said, Virgin isn't hurting for money. They apparently have a solid customer base in and out of JFK, so they are revenue positive out of there. Why add more cost to your structure to appease a small LCC?

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 31):
Who ever said anything about SEA?

I was using it as an example. Who is to say that if such an agreement were to happen, AA and DL wouldn't suddenly put flights to PWM and ROC out of JFK to take away some of that revenue? Although they probably won't, because like I said, the international revenue in such markets is minimal.

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 36):
Why wouldnt they chose CPT-LHR-SEA?

I didn't know VS served SEA. Your trying to spin them to BA or UA, aren't you?  Wink



OttoPylit
I don't have a microwave, but I do have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ATA L1011, Baidu [Spider], caljn, Dominion301, EasternA300, EasternDC821, ek17, intsim, Jetstar315, RayChuang, timberwolf24, Ytraveller and 277 guests