Ontario Airport as a major secondary airport to LAX

amm2598 · Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:49 pm

Is it ever feasible to think that Ontario Airport will grow to be the major second airport of the LA Metro region? Could someone like WN, AS, or F9 grow a sizable hub/focus city there? The Inland Empire has grown a lot recently and has nearly 4.5 million people, roughly the same size as the Detroit and Seattle metros. It is the 13th largest metro area in the United States. I realize that LAX is close by but it is reaching capacity and most cities in the inland empire are 50-70 miles from LAX which can be a 2 hour drive in heavy traffic.

Why hasn't an airline come in to capitalize on this demand?

DFW789ER · Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:55 pm

ONT has been losing service for years. While it has a large catchment area, it has been unable to keep airlines. WN is by far the largest operator there. I recall when Delta flew 767-300's there from DFW. Regardless of what happens at LAX, I don't see ONT gaining much, if any new services.

LAXintl · Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:03 pm

ONT while physically is a good airfield, it simply sits too far from the bulk of Los Angeles basin to mean much.

ONT is really nothing more than a community for its local immediate catchment area, the same way BUR, LGB and SNA serve their communities.

Also don't be deceived by things like population in the Inland Empire. The region has the nation’s highest poverty rate among top 25 metro areas. The region was ground central the housing collapse last decade, and has yet to climb its way out of the hole.

Where ONT can excel at is freight. Not only UPS west coast hub, but also intermodal truck/rail hub serving the regions massive warehouse and distribution center activity.

intotheair · Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:03 pm

I actually don't think ONT is all that convenient to anything but the Inland Empire. If anything, SNA or BUR would probably be better choices for more capacity and for serving LA and Orange County, but expansion of either is politically unfeasible.

cosyr · Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:13 pm

I have always thought ONT would be the inevitable solution to LAX's capacity problems in the future. It is the only other LA airport that could possibly serve enough of the basin, with all of LGB, BUR and even SNA's size and noise restrictions. ONT may not be in the best part of town, but neither are many airports (if fact, that is not coincedental). Even though it is in decline at the moment, FLL and BWI both show that time can change those facts in big metro areas when the right players start paying attention and markets change.

joeljack · Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:16 pm

I would think maybe Spirit could have large hub in ONT and be successful. The only way to get people to drive to ONT from most of the LA basin is offer something the others don't and do it on a scale where everybody knows about it. If a ULCC had like 250+ daily flights from ONT, everybody would know about it and could be successful, similar to how FLL functions for the Miami area.

MIflyer12 · Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:21 pm

amm2598 wrote:
The Inland Empire has grown a lot recently and has nearly 4.5 million people, roughly the same size as the Detroit and Seattle metros.

That's is statistically irrelevant. SEA and DTW don't have airports the size of LAX as competition just sixty miles away.

dc10lover · Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:31 pm

Maybe someday there will be ONT - BOS service. This will get things rolling for ONT.

Revelation · Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:37 pm

amm2598 wrote:
Is it ever feasible to think that Ontario Airport will grow to be the major second airport of the LA Metro region? Could someone like WN, AS, or F9 grow a sizable hub/focus city there? The Inland Empire has grown a lot recently and has nearly 4.5 million people, roughly the same size as the Detroit and Seattle metros. It is the 13th largest metro area in the United States. I realize that LAX is close by but it is reaching capacity and most cities in the inland empire are 50-70 miles from LAX which can be a 2 hour drive in heavy traffic.

Why hasn't an airline come in to capitalize on this demand?

Maybe Delta can put its DC9s back in service and set up a mini-hub there. Also perhaps FI can get set up a fleet of 789s to haul enough fish in to corner the local seafood market, and Air France can set up a plane washing bay. Maybe NH will find it only needs two A380s for its HNL service and can fly Japanese tourists interested in touring the Salton Sea and other delights of the Inland Empire.

flyfresno · Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:43 pm

Duplicate post, see below...

flyfresno · Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:43 pm

Duplicate post see below...

flyfresno · Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:44 pm

This has been the pipe dream of ONT for years; it was even renamed the LA Ontario International Airport with the hope that it would compete with LAX. Unfortunately, it sits in the part of the greater LA basin with the lowest income and least economic activity. It's large population means it will always have a high demand for short flights to the Bay Area, Vegas, and Phoenix; but too many people are willing to drive to LAX for longer flights (especially trans-oceanic) and too few people are willing to go the other direction. A huge lack of public transit to ONT as well as the terrible traffic (it can take 2+ hours to get from LAX to ONT in the height of rush hour) further hurt it. But yes, it's a great airport from an airfield standpoint and has plenty of gate space. They would have to put in a cheap express train from downtown LA through Pasadena and the other communities along the way to make it any more relevant than it is...and even that might only mean a small bump in enplanements. Also, sorry this got posted three times...grr.

simairlinenet · Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:51 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Also don't be deceived by things like population in the Inland Empire. The region has the nation’s highest poverty rate among top 25 metro areas. The region was ground central the housing collapse last decade, and has yet to climb its way out of the hole.

flyfresno wrote:
Unfortunately, it sits in the part of the greater LA basin with the lowest income and least economic activity.

To put some numbers behind this, Census Bureau reports GDP per capita of ~$62,000 for the Los Angeles MSA vs. ~$29,000 for the Ontario MSA.

Even when you do the math for the GDP for the entire Ontario MSA, its economic peers are Pittsburgh and Indianapolis. No major single-airline operations there anymore.

GDP is 2013
Population is 2014

BMWdrvr75 · Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:52 pm

Back in the mid 90s before the new terminals were built WN was up to 70 plus flights using trailers as boarding gates now they are down to about 30 flights a day still touting ONT as a PSP gateway (IMHO WN should just serve PSP and stop with this ONT non-sense.) You could go non-stop to ORD on AA and UA, ATL on DL, STL on TW and many more. The new terminals were built and the economy went south. Commercial service dropped rapidly and never recovered. I live in Riverside and Palm Springs when in Riverside I use SNA and of course when in PSP I use PSP, when in season you can go anywhere — far more choices then ONT minus WN service to OAK, SJC, LAS and SMF. Interestingly enough Morris Air flew SLC and OAK to PSP daily using 733s. On the last day of Morris operations the WN ONT Ground Ops Supervisors went to PSP and packed up Morris’ belongings and never looked back. With all this being said AA, AS, AM, DL, and UA are the only carriers on the passenger side of ONT now-a-days…..PSP has double the airlines….even during the summertime minus Air Canada.

flyfresno · Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:00 am

simairlinenet wrote:
To put some numbers behind this, Census Bureau reports GDP per capita of ~$62,000 for the Los Angeles MSA vs. ~$29,000 for the Ontario MSA.

Never understood why these are separate MSAs...there is virtually no break in city between LA and Ontario/Riverside. LA/OC/IE should all be one MSA.

amm2598 · Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:04 am

Thanks everyone for your replies! I didn't know the area was that bad off economically- that explains a lot.

LAXintl · Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:06 am

flyfresno wrote:
simairlinenet wrote:
To put some numbers behind this, Census Bureau reports GDP per capita of ~$62,000 for the Los Angeles MSA vs. ~$29,000 for the Ontario MSA.

Never understood why these are separate MSAs...there is virtually no break in city between LA and Ontario/Riverside. LA/OC/IE should all be one MSA.

Well they are part of single CSA.

But MSA divisions are common - look at how DC/BWI are split, or how Bay Area - SFO/OAK split from SJC, etc.

DCAfan · Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:15 am

I always thought that El Toro was a missed opportunity to be a counterweight to LAX. There is nothing we can do about it now.

grbauc · Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:04 am

Ive posed this question before. SWA moved a lot of action over to LAX and ONT has been a shell of its peak. The economy plays a factor along with location. Ive thought if they offer a airline a attractive priced option on rent could a airline hub out of ONT. I think yes SWA did for a good amount of time. SWA went in to a major growth period and slashed the amount of flights on ONT SMF there might be a 4 time period between flights now.

Could Spirit or another ULCC work I think so. Yes its disadvantaged in location but it think WN made it work till a opportunity at Terminal 1 presented its self. I do think ONT needs to get the pricing to work on rent and I don't know if it only has to be a ULCC but I could see B-6 or AS or a major working there sometime. When the economy in the IE gets better and has the reality of LAX sinks in that there is no room.

FX1816 · Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:29 am

BMWdrvr75 wrote:
Back in the mid 90s before the new terminals were built WN was up to 70 plus flights using trailers as boarding gates now they are down to about 30 flights a day still touting ONT as a PSP gateway (IMHO WN should just serve PSP and stop with this ONT non-sense.) You could go non-stop to ORD on AA and UA, ATL on DL, STL on TW and many more. The new terminals were built and the economy went south. Commercial service dropped rapidly and never recovered. I live in Riverside and Palm Springs when in Riverside I use SNA and of course when in PSP I use PSP, when in season you can go anywhere — far more choices then ONT minus WN service to OAK, SJC, LAS and SMF. Interestingly enough Morris Air flew SLC and OAK to PSP daily using 733s. On the last day of Morris operations the WN ONT Ground Ops Supervisors went to PSP and packed up Morris’ belongings and never looked back. With all this being said AA, AS, AM, DL, and UA are the only carriers on the passenger side of ONT now-a-days…..PSP has double the airlines….even during the summertime minus Air Canada.

Where to start with the inaccuracies here.

1. The terminals opened September of 1998, ten years before the economy went south.

2. Southwest stopping this ONT non-sense and going to PSP is just beyond ridiculous.

3. Southwest flies to OAK, SJC, LAS and SMF......Also PHX, DEN, MDW, PDX and DAL.

4. ONT has AA, AS, AM, DL and UA as the only carriers? Ok well completely disregarding WN and we even have Volaris.

5. PSP has double the airlines? Seriously, are you considering SkyWest and Mesa as separate airlines from AA, UA and DL? PSP has Air Canada/Rouge, WestJet and Allegiant, ONT doesn't have them but PSP does not have AM or Volaris.

I grew up at ONT and started working there 20 years ago working for pretty much everyone and now I'm at the Tower so I do know a little bit about the place.

FX1816

rbavfan · Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:47 am

joeljack wrote:
I would think maybe Spirit could have large hub in ONT and be successful. The only way to get people to drive to ONT from most of the LA basin is offer something the others don't and do it on a scale where everybody knows about it. If a ULCC had like 250+ daily flights from ONT, everybody would know about it and could be successful, similar to how FLL functions for the Miami area.

FLL is far closer to MIA than ONT to LAX so they do not really compare. Both FLL & MIA also have cruise ship terminals that they are close to and provide feed. ONT has how ever been constrained while it was run by LAWA making sure LAX was preferred. Now that Ontario has control of the airport they can compete to get airlines. LAWA has keep growth down for years. ONT also does not have big attractions near by to feed traffic into them.

rbavfan · Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:03 am

BMWdrvr75 wrote:
Back in the mid 90s before the new terminals were built WN was up to 70 plus flights using trailers as boarding gates now they are down to about 30 flights a day still touting ONT as a PSP gateway (IMHO WN should just serve PSP and stop with this ONT non-sense.) You could go non-stop to ORD on AA and UA, ATL on DL, STL on TW and many more. The new terminals were built and the economy went south. Commercial service dropped rapidly and never recovered. I live in Riverside and Palm Springs when in Riverside I use SNA and of course when in PSP I use PSP, when in season you can go anywhere — far more choices then ONT minus WN service to OAK, SJC, LAS and SMF. Interestingly enough Morris Air flew SLC and OAK to PSP daily using 733s. On the last day of Morris operations the WN ONT Ground Ops Supervisors went to PSP and packed up Morris’ belongings and never looked back. With all this being said AA, AS, AM, DL, and UA are the only carriers on the passenger side of ONT now-a-days…..PSP has double the airlines….even during the summertime minus Air Canada.

So AA, AS, DL, UA & WN are the only carriers at ONT. You realize AA, DL, UA & WN are the top 5 US airlines. Also WN & AS are the largest west coast Airlines. So if they have not expanded then they are not getting the loads needed for expansion.

BMWdrvr75 · Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:18 am

FX1816 wrote:
BMWdrvr75 wrote:
Back in the mid 90s before the new terminals were built WN was up to 70 plus flights using trailers as boarding gates now they are down to about 30 flights a day still touting ONT as a PSP gateway (IMHO WN should just serve PSP and stop with this ONT non-sense.) You could go non-stop to ORD on AA and UA, ATL on DL, STL on TW and many more. The new terminals were built and the economy went south. Commercial service dropped rapidly and never recovered. I live in Riverside and Palm Springs when in Riverside I use SNA and of course when in PSP I use PSP, when in season you can go anywhere — far more choices then ONT minus WN service to OAK, SJC, LAS and SMF. Interestingly enough Morris Air flew SLC and OAK to PSP daily using 733s. On the last day of Morris operations the WN ONT Ground Ops Supervisors went to PSP and packed up Morris’ belongings and never looked back. With all this being said AA, AS, AM, DL, and UA are the only carriers on the passenger side of ONT now-a-days…..PSP has double the airlines….even during the summertime minus Air Canada.

Where to start with the inaccuracies here.

1.
The terminals opened September of 1998, ten years before the economy went south. Then why did airlines start cutting schedules?....Remember a thing called September 11.....That is when my Supervisor position was eliminated for WN at ONT and I had to go back on line as a Flight Attendant because WN as others stared reducing service.

2. Southwest stopping this ONT non-sense and going to PSP is just beyond ridiculous. Southwest touts Palm Spring via Ontario - its not a 20 minute drive like to Riversdie. It is a good hour drive and should not be marketed as such. Very misleading!

3. Southwest flies to OAK, SJC, LAS and SMF...Yes they do and the...Also tp PHX, DEN, MDW, PDX and DAL. which you can go non-stop out of PSP on AA, AS,DL and UA

4. ONT has AA, AS, AM, DL and UA as the only carriers? Ok well completely disregarding WN and we even have Volaris...my fault I forgot WN.

5. PSP has double the airlines? Seriously, are you considering SkyWest and Mesa as separate airlines from AA, UA and DL? PSP has Air Canada/Rouge, WestJet and Allegiant, ONT doesn't have them but PSP does not have AM or Volaris.
PSP - American Airlines (American Eagle), Allegiant, Alaska Airlines (Horizon), Air Canada, Delta (Delta Connection), JetBlue, Sun Country, United (United Express) WestJet, Virgin America I count 10
ONT - American/ Southwest Terminal 4 (2) Alaska, Delta, United, Volaris, AeroMexico Terminal 2 (5) Total 7 Airlines. I might have a Masters in Education and not in Math but is sure does seem PSP's 10 is more than ONT's 5

I grew up at ONT and started working there 20 years ago working for pretty much everyone and now I'm at the Tower so I do know a little bit about the place.

Apology Accepted!

FX1816

BMWdrvr75 · Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:23 am

FX1816 wrote:
BMWdrvr75 wrote:
Back in the mid 90s before the new terminals were built WN was up to 70 plus flights using trailers as boarding gates now they are down to about 30 flights a day still touting ONT as a PSP gateway (IMHO WN should just serve PSP and stop with this ONT non-sense.) You could go non-stop to ORD on AA and UA, ATL on DL, STL on TW and many more. The new terminals were built and the economy went south. Commercial service dropped rapidly and never recovered. I live in Riverside and Palm Springs when in Riverside I use SNA and of course when in PSP I use PSP, when in season you can go anywhere — far more choices then ONT minus WN service to OAK, SJC, LAS and SMF. Interestingly enough Morris Air flew SLC and OAK to PSP daily using 733s. On the last day of Morris operations the WN ONT Ground Ops Supervisors went to PSP and packed up Morris’ belongings and never looked back. With all this being said AA, AS, AM, DL, and UA are the only carriers on the passenger side of ONT now-a-days…..PSP has double the airlines….even during the summertime minus Air Canada.

Where to start with the inaccuracies here.

1. The terminals opened September of 1998, ten years before the economy went south.

2. Southwest stopping this ONT non-sense and going to PSP is just beyond ridiculous.

3. Southwest flies to OAK, SJC, LAS and SMF......Also PHX, DEN, MDW, PDX and DAL.

4. ONT has AA, AS, AM, DL and UA as the only carriers? Ok well completely disregarding WN and we even have Volaris.

5. PSP has double the airlines? Seriously, are you considering SkyWest and Mesa as separate airlines from AA, UA and DL? PSP has Air Canada/Rouge, WestJet and Allegiant, ONT doesn't have them but PSP does not have AM or Volaris.

I grew up at ONT and started working there 20 years ago working for pretty much everyone and now I'm at the Tower so I do know a little bit about the place.

FX1816

1. The terminals opened September of 1998, ten years before the economy went south. Then why did airlines start cutting schedules?....Remember a thing called September 11.....That is when my Supervisor position was eliminated for WN at ONT and I had to go back on line as a Flight Attendant because WN as others stared reducing service.

2. Southwest stopping this ONT non-sense and going to PSP is just beyond ridiculous. Southwest touts Palm Spring via Ontario - its not a 20 minute drive like to Riversdie. It is a good hour drive and should not be marketed as such. Very misleading!

3. Southwest flies to OAK, SJC, LAS and SMF...Yes they do and the...Also tp PHX, DEN, MDW, PDX and DAL. which you can go non-stop out of PSP on AA, AS,DL and UA

4. ONT has AA, AS, AM, DL and UA as the only carriers? Ok well completely disregarding WN and we even have Volaris...my fault I forgot WN.

5. PSP has double the airlines? Seriously, are you considering SkyWest and Mesa as separate airlines from AA, UA and DL? PSP has Air Canada/Rouge, WestJet and Allegiant, ONT doesn't have them but PSP does not have AM or Volaris.
PSP - American Airlines (American Eagle), Allegiant, Alaska Airlines (Horizon), Air Canada, Delta (Delta Connection), JetBlue, Sun Country, United (United Express) WestJet, Virgin America I count 10
ONT - American/ Southwest Terminal 4 (2) Alaska, Delta, United, Volaris, AeroMexico Terminal 2 (5) Total 7 Airlines. I might have a Masters in Education and not in Math but is sure does seem PSP's 10 is more than ONT's 5

I grew up at ONT and started working there 20 years ago working for pretty much everyone and now I'm at the Tower so I do know a little bit about the place.

Apology Accepted!

AAlaxfan · Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:33 am

5BMWdrvr75 wrote:
PSP - American Airlines (American Eagle), Allegiant, Alaska Airlines (Horizon), Air Canada, Delta (Delta Connection), JetBlue, Sun Country, United (United Express) WestJet, Virgin America I count 10
ONT - American/ Southwest Terminal 4 (2) Alaska, Delta, United, Volaris, AeroMexico Terminal 2 (5) Total 7 Airlines. I might have a Masters in Education and not in Math but is sure does seem PSP's 10 is more than ONT's 5

I think you meant to say: PSP's 10 is more than ONT's 7. Still not double the amount.

grbauc · Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:02 am

grbauc wrote:
Ive posed this question before. SWA moved a lot of action over to LAX and ONT has been a shell of its peak. The economy plays a factor along with location. Ive thought if they offer a airline a attractive priced option on rent could a airline hub out of ONT. I think yes SWA did for a good amount of time. SWA went in to a major growth period and slashed the amount of flights on ONT SMF there might be a 4 time period between flights now.

Could Spirit or another ULCC work I think so. Yes its disadvantaged in location but it think WN made it work till a opportunity at Terminal 1 At Lax presented its self. I do think ONT needs to get the pricing to work on rent and I don't know if it only has to be a ULCC but I could see B-6 or AS or a major working there sometime. When the economy in the IE gets better and has the reality of LAX sinks in that there is no room.

FX1816 · Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:51 am

BMWdrvr75 wrote:
FX1816 wrote:
BMWdrvr75 wrote:
Back in the mid 90s before the new terminals were built WN was up to 70 plus flights using trailers as boarding gates now they are down to about 30 flights a day still touting ONT as a PSP gateway (IMHO WN should just serve PSP and stop with this ONT non-sense.) You could go non-stop to ORD on AA and UA, ATL on DL, STL on TW and many more. The new terminals were built and the economy went south. Commercial service dropped rapidly and never recovered. I live in Riverside and Palm Springs when in Riverside I use SNA and of course when in PSP I use PSP, when in season you can go anywhere — far more choices then ONT minus WN service to OAK, SJC, LAS and SMF. Interestingly enough Morris Air flew SLC and OAK to PSP daily using 733s. On the last day of Morris operations the WN ONT Ground Ops Supervisors went to PSP and packed up Morris’ belongings and never looked back. With all this being said AA, AS, AM, DL, and UA are the only carriers on the passenger side of ONT now-a-days…..PSP has double the airlines….even during the summertime minus Air Canada.

Where to start with the inaccuracies here.

1. The terminals opened September of 1998, ten years before the economy went south.

2. Southwest stopping this ONT non-sense and going to PSP is just beyond ridiculous.

3. Southwest flies to OAK, SJC, LAS and SMF......Also PHX, DEN, MDW, PDX and DAL.

4. ONT has AA, AS, AM, DL and UA as the only carriers? Ok well completely disregarding WN and we even have Volaris.

5. PSP has double the airlines? Seriously, are you considering SkyWest and Mesa as separate airlines from AA, UA and DL? PSP has Air Canada/Rouge, WestJet and Allegiant, ONT doesn't have them but PSP does not have AM or Volaris.

I grew up at ONT and started working there 20 years ago working for pretty much everyone and now I'm at the Tower so I do know a little bit about the place.

FX1816

1. The terminals opened September of 1998, ten years before the economy went south. Then why did airlines start cutting schedules?....Remember a thing called September 11.....That is when my Supervisor position was eliminated for WN at ONT and I had to go back on line as a Flight Attendant because WN as others stared reducing service.

2. Southwest stopping this ONT non-sense and going to PSP is just beyond ridiculous. Southwest touts Palm Spring via Ontario - its not a 20 minute drive like to Riversdie. It is a good hour drive and should not be marketed as such. Very misleading!

3. Southwest flies to OAK, SJC, LAS and SMF...Yes they do and the...Also tp PHX, DEN, MDW, PDX and DAL. which you can go non-stop out of PSP on AA, AS,DL and UA

4. ONT has AA, AS, AM, DL and UA as the only carriers? Ok well completely disregarding WN and we even have Volaris...my fault I forgot WN.

5. PSP has double the airlines? Seriously, are you considering SkyWest and Mesa as separate airlines from AA, UA and DL? PSP has Air Canada/Rouge, WestJet and Allegiant, ONT doesn't have them but PSP does not have AM or Volaris.
PSP - American Airlines (American Eagle), Allegiant, Alaska Airlines (Horizon), Air Canada, Delta (Delta Connection), JetBlue, Sun Country, United (United Express) WestJet, Virgin America I count 10
ONT - American/ Southwest Terminal 4 (2) Alaska, Delta, United, Volaris, AeroMexico Terminal 2 (5) Total 7 Airlines. I might have a Masters in Education and not in Math but is sure does seem PSP's 10 is more than ONT's 5

I grew up at ONT and started working there 20 years ago working for pretty much everyone and now I'm at the Tower so I do know a little bit about the place.

Apology Accepted!

1. Yes the Terminals were opened in 1998 and the busiest year at ONT was 2007 so what is your point about 9/11?

2. If there was a true market for WN to fly into PSP they would have done it years ago.

3. Not sure what your point is here?

4. Oh boy

5. So for PSP you are adding the regionals to the list to make it seem larger than 10. At ONT we also have American Eagle (Mesa), United Express (SkyWest), Delta Connection (SkyWest) and SkyWest flies for AS too. So yes 10 is hardly double the 7 at ONT however JetBlue is seasonal so they don't really count and neither do any of the other seasonal routes that any of these carriers operate.

Apology Accepted? I didn't ask for your apology

PatrickZ80 · Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:32 pm

flyfresno wrote:
but too many people are willing to drive to LAX for longer flights (especially trans-oceanic) and too few people are willing to go the other direction

Maybe it's the other way around, maybe the lack of flights at Ontario causes people to drive to LAX.

Actually I'm surprised Norwegian uses LAX instead of Ontario. In San Francisco they do use Oakland instead of San Francisco International, so you'd think in LA they'd pick Ontario over LAX. I think Norwegian would do good at Ontario.

There are more examples of secondary airports further away from the city centers that are doing good as alternatives. Fort Lauderdale was already mentioned before and Oakland is also a good alternative for San Francisco. But what about London Gatwick? Ontario can be the Gatwick of Los Angeles. They'll never pass LAX just like Gatwick will never pass Heathrow, but they certainly can have their market share.

commavia · Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:44 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Maybe it's the other way around, maybe the lack of flights at Ontario causes people to drive to LAX.

It's not. Go back to reply #3 for the bottom line - ONT is simply not a viable alternative for LAX because most of the people, and in particular the people with money, in Southern California live closer to LAX than ONT. Go back and look through the last two decades of history at LAWA, and essentially the entire Los Angeles political apparatus constantly trying to decentralize regional air service and push more of the volume out of LAX and to other airports in the area. It didn't work. For all the complaining about congestion and chaos, even when given a choice, huge volumes of people still consistently choose LAX. Thus why ONT is where it is - massively overbuilt (in terms of passenger, as opposed to cargo, infrastructure) and catering to the narrow, and far smaller, market of the Inland Empire.

PatrickZ80 wrote:
There are more examples of secondary airports further away from the city centers that are doing good as alternatives. Fort Lauderdale was already mentioned before and Oakland is also a good alternative for San Francisco. But what about London Gatwick? Ontario can be the Gatwick of Los Angeles. They'll never pass LAX just like Gatwick will never pass Heathrow, but they certainly can have their market share.

I take your point, but here, too, others have already explained the way things are. The comparison to MIA/FLL is a bad one for the reasons already mentioned. I think the better analogy is BOS/PVD/MHT. Those smaller, "regional," airports thrived for as long as their cost structures, and the cost structure of their main airline (the same as ONT's) made their economics attractive. But the second capacity rose and fares dropped at the region's primary, centrally-located airport, much of the demand quickly shifted there. The same with LAX. Volume at LAX handily dwarfs the traffic of all of Southern California's other airports combined. And again, it's for a reason - people want to use LAX. Indeed, there's really only one regional airport that consistently seems to hold its own in terms of maintaining capacity and generally maintaining volume, and that's SNA, but that's a very unique and specialized comparison given the particularly high concentration of wealth and O&D surrounding that airport.

I do agree that at this point the only prospect for significant stimulation of demand at ONT is from a ULCC that would radically reduce fares in and out of the airport and drive volume through a combination of (1) Los Angeles outbound travelers willing to drive to ONT to save a lot of money, (2) Los Angeles inbound tourists willing to drive in from ONT to save a lot of money or because they don't know better and (3) local Inland Empire residents who choose to take a trip they otherwise wouldn't have. But even with all of that, (1), (2) and (3) combined won't - I suspect - get ONT back to its mid-2000s traffic peak, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future.

lightsaber · Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:48 pm

ONT is a *long* drive with a lack of flights. Traffic in Los Angeles is horrid.
For other secondary airports, passengers are willing to do the reverse drive out to the secondary airport. Try to do that in afternoon traffic in Los Angeles. From 3pm (15:00) to 7pm (19:00) the roads are gridlocked.

ONT will only thrive once the region around it has the transportation to commute to higher income jobs. More commuters to the higher income jobs would allow a relocation to the region of other higher paying business.

LAX has the flights and that draws from 5 counties: Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Orange, and Kern (tiny).
ONT might draw from 3: San Bernardino (not prosperous), Riverside (so-so prosperity), and Eastern Los Angeles (not prosperous).

LAX also benefits from overflow from San Diego (SAN). By this, I mean the routes better served from LAX than from the connections available from SAN.

Lightsaber

PatrickZ80 · Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:55 pm

commavia wrote:
It's not. Go back to reply #3 for the bottom line - ONT is simply not a viable alternative for LAX because most of the people, and in particular the people with money, in Southern California live closer to LAX than ONT. Go back and look through the last two decades of history at LAWA, and essentially the entire Los Angeles political apparatus constantly trying to decentralize regional air service and push more of the volume out of LAX and to other airports in the area. It didn't work. For all the complaining about congestion and chaos, even when given a choice, huge volumes of people still consistently choose LAX. Thus why ONT is where it is - massively overbuilt (in terms of passenger, as opposed to cargo, infrastructure) and catering to the narrow, and far smaller, market of the Inland Empire.

That may be true, but that's exactly why Ontario would be the perfect airport for LCC's like Norwegian. They're not aiming at the rich people that live closer to LAX, they're aiming at the poorer ones like those that live near Ontario. The ones that wouldn't fly if it were too expensive, but if you make it cheap enough they will. And flying from Ontario is just the way to make it cheap.

Ontario wouldn't work for legacy airlines, they're better off at LAX. But that doesn't mean there is no market for Ontario, you just got to know where to look for it. I believe Ontario should be the LCC airport for Los Angeles, that's where their strength lies. That's the market they serve best. Airlines like Spirit, Allegiant and Norwegian are the ones that can benefit from the downsides of Ontario.

commavia · Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:02 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
That may be true, but that's exactly why Ontario would be the perfect airport for LCC's like Norwegian. They're not aiming at the rich people that live closer to LAX, they're aiming at the poorer ones like those that live near Ontario. The ones that wouldn't fly if it were too expensive, but if you make it cheap enough they will. And flying from Ontario is just the way to make it cheap.

But again - look at BOS. The comparison is instructive. If passengers can get competitive, low fares at the "convenient" (somewhat comical term for any Los Angeles area airport surrounded by highways, I know), centrally-located airport with nonstop flights to everywhere, why would the passengers want to go all the way out to an airport in what is, to a tourist, the middle of nowhere?

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Ontario wouldn't work for legacy airlines, they're better off at LAX. But that doesn't mean there is no market for Ontario, you just got to know where to look for it. I believe Ontario should be the LCC airport for Los Angeles, that's where their strength lies. That's the market they serve best. Airlines like Spirit, Allegiant and Norwegian are the ones that can benefit from the downsides of Ontario.

Well first off, ONT does work for legacy airlines. AA, Delta and United all fly to ONT. I know that both AA and United have a very longstanding history at ONT and in the IE - both have been flying to ONT for nearly five decades. And as for being an "LCC airport for Los Angeles" - that's basically what it already is. Southwest, the largest LCC in the U.S., has nearly 60% market share today as it is. As said, I agree that there may be an opportunity to stimulate some additional demand with a ULCC that can come in with fares even lower than Southwest, but even with that, I highly doubt it's going to stimulate traffic sufficient to return ONT to anything close to where it was before the recession.

PatrickZ80 · Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:25 pm

commavia wrote:
But again - look at BOS. The comparison is instructive. If passengers can get competitive, low fares at the "convenient" (somewhat comical term for any Los Angeles area airport surrounded by highways, I know), centrally-located airport with nonstop flights to everywhere, why would the passengers want to go all the way out to an airport in what is, to a tourist, the middle of nowhere?

Maybe because the middle of nowhere is hard to define, not everybody needs to be in the same place. If you need to be in east L.A. Ontario is much closer than all the way to LAX. In that case Ontario is centrally located and LAX is in the middle of nowhere.

It's true that LAX is a major airport with nonstop flights to everywhere, but most of those flights are irrelevant. They might as well not exist because the people Ontario would be aiming at wouldn't fly them anyway.

As for tourists, the ones that would be flying the airlines that Ontario would be aiming at, I don't think they care much. They're just happy to get a cheap ticket and if that means a little inconvenience by landing at an alternative airport then so be it. There are always the tourists with a bit more money to spend that prefer LAX over Ontario and they can continue to do so by flying a legacy airline. But there are also tourists with less money to spend and they're just happy to get things cheap. Why do you think alternative airports in Europe are so popular? Not because of their convenience, but because they're cheaper. And Ontario can be cheaper than LAX.

commavia · Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:33 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Maybe because the middle of nowhere is hard to define

In the context of tourists traveling to Southern California - the original point of my "middle of nowhere" comment - it's not hard to define at all. For tourists traveling to Southern California, ONT is in the middle of nowhere. It's as simple as that. There is virtually nothing of major tourism interest in the Inland Empire. That's just reality.

PatrickZ80 wrote:
As for tourists, the ones that would be flying the airlines that Ontario would be aiming at, I don't think they care much. They're just happy to get a cheap ticket and if that means a little inconvenience by landing at an alternative airport then so be it.

Right, but again, here's the problem - generally speaking these days, said tourists can get that same cheap ticket at LAX. LAX is a remarkably competitive and cheap airport to fly into for an airport of its size. Indeed, I'd guess - others here will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure - that LAX is probably one of the most competitive and cheapest (on a stage-length-adjusted average fare basis) major airports in the U.S. Therein lies ONT's dilemma - stimulating demand with lower fares, and catering to tourists willing to accept "a little inconvenience" in order to get that lowest fare, only works if the competing airport(s) are no more convenient. So, as I said, and I think many would agree, there likely is some opportunity for ONT to further stimulate demand with fares even lower than those already offered at ONT. But even if ONT were able to attract Allegiant, Frontier or Spirit - or all three! - I'm still highly skeptical that it would bring ONT back to anywhere close to where it was a decade ago. The competitive and network dynamics in the airline industry, fare environment elsewhere in Southern California, and local IE economy have all just changed so fundamentally.

sassiciai · Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:42 pm

Ontario? LAX secondary airport? Are you kidding?

For most of us in the world, Ontario is a state in Canada, some thousands of km/miles/nms from LAX, so the thread title for us is a bit of a misleading joke!

But for our USA-colleagues, maybe it's a real question. But are you all really so introverted that no-one thinks "Canada!" when the word "Ontario" appears?

But then ......

Latest news: Glasgow Airport (GGW) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Airport_(Montana)

LAXintl · Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:37 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Actually I'm surprised Norwegian uses LAX instead of Ontario. In San Francisco they do use Oakland instead of San Francisco International, so you'd think in LA they'd pick Ontario over LAX. I think Norwegian would do good at Ontario.

Comparing OAK to SF and ONT to LA is trully an apples and oranges comparison.

OAK is very well integrated to SF Bay area, its easy to get across the peninsula. ONT is really distant on the eastern fringes of the LA basin.
ONT also a terrible place to land for foreign visitors. Europeans want the beach, tour Hollywood, Beverly Hills, visit Universal, maybe Disney, etc. All those are within a closer radius from LAX.

PatrickZ80 wrote:
That may be true, but that's exactly why Ontario would be the perfect airport for LCC's like Norwegian. They're not aiming at the rich people that live closer to LAX, they're aiming at the poorer ones like those that live near Ontario. The ones that wouldn't fly if it were too expensive, but if you make it cheap enough they will. And flying from Ontario is just the way to make it cheap.

And how many of these "poor" (your word) people even have a passport, let alone have time and money to go visiting Europe?

The airport barely supports service to Mexico.

c933103 · Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:38 pm

1. Weren't PSP even more far away from.ONT than LAX is from ONT?
2. The airport being farther away would make it less attractive but far from not viable.
3. Weren't there some Chinese airline considering ONT service?

ucdtim17 · Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:49 pm

OAK and SFO are ~equidistant to downtown SF. OAK would be comparable to ONT if it were located in Stockton.

Edit: That was an exaggeration. Livermore would be a better comparable.

jetero · Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:00 pm

And ONT has more than twice the amount of seats than PSP . . . but, yeah, #MakeOntarioGreatAgain . . . just make it like Palm Springs?

9w748capt · Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:02 pm

The thing is fares at ONT aren't even that low. As others have posted, it's incredible that LAX is by far the dominant airport in the area, and by far still has the lowest fares, almost without fail. My wife's family lives in the OC, about 45 min (on a good day) from LAX, and about the same from ONT. SNA is the closest and easiest but rarely has the lowest fares. Even then, we'll gladly pay a $50-100 premium to use SNA (even if it means we have to connect to get home). We have never once used ONT.

ucdtim17 · Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:09 pm

As others have mentioned, fares at LAX are dirt cheap. As a PDX resident, it's easy to find $59 fares to LAX. There's so much competition. I don't know how that's the most profitable use of those planes for the airlines, but that's their problem.

mercure1 · Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:17 pm

Sure Norwegian can fly to ONT, but why??? Its not like access is restricted at LAX.

Why bother trying market a secondary distant airport when you can happily serve the premier preferred airport in the region. Makes no sense.

Barring restrictions like slots, bilateral issues, or cost, airlines will tend to go where the money and people are. That sounds like LAX to me for Los Angeles.

Oh and the Oakland to Ontario analogy is bad. I would barely consider OAK as a secondary airport for the Bay region as its virtually smack in the middle of the market.

usflyer123 · Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:28 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
commavia wrote:
It's not. Go back to reply #3 for the bottom line - ONT is simply not a viable alternative for LAX because most of the people, and in particular the people with money, in Southern California live closer to LAX than ONT. Go back and look through the last two decades of history at LAWA, and essentially the entire Los Angeles political apparatus constantly trying to decentralize regional air service and push more of the volume out of LAX and to other airports in the area. It didn't work. For all the complaining about congestion and chaos, even when given a choice, huge volumes of people still consistently choose LAX. Thus why ONT is where it is - massively overbuilt (in terms of passenger, as opposed to cargo, infrastructure) and catering to the narrow, and far smaller, market of the Inland Empire.

That may be true, but that's exactly why Ontario would be the perfect airport for LCC's like Norwegian. They're not aiming at the rich people that live closer to LAX, they're aiming at the poorer ones like those that live near Ontario. The ones that wouldn't fly if it were too expensive, but if you make it cheap enough they will. And flying from Ontario is just the way to make it cheap.

Ontario wouldn't work for legacy airlines, they're better off at LAX. But that doesn't mean there is no market for Ontario, you just got to know where to look for it. I believe Ontario should be the LCC airport for Los Angeles, that's where their strength lies. That's the market they serve best. Airlines like Spirit, Allegiant and Norwegian are the ones that can benefit from the downsides of Ontario.

The common thing with all the airlines you have mentioned is that their main business plan is built on leisure traffic(NK serve alot of VFR traffic as well). Those airlines already serve LAX with dirt cheap fares, so I think those airlines will not take the risk of losing some of its potential customers when its already serves its targeted passengers. Another point is the legacy carriers. They do fit in ONT because its a different market than LAX is, and thats a pretty big market. Of course the Inland Empire itself dosent generate much O&D traffic, but there is enough traffic to be sent to those airlines hubs.

jetero · Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:41 pm

9w748capt wrote:
it's incredible that LAX is by far the dominant airport in the area, and by far still has the lowest fares, almost without fail.

It's called supply.

PanzerPowner · Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:58 pm

Ditch All Noise Restrictions, build international terminals at all secondary airports and getting more slots.

9w748capt · Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:03 pm

jetero wrote:
9w748capt wrote:
it's incredible that LAX is by far the dominant airport in the area, and by far still has the lowest fares, almost without fail.

It's called supply.

Gee thanks.

grbauc · Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:43 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
commavia wrote:
It's not. Go back to reply #3 for the bottom line - ONT is simply not a viable alternative for LAX because most of the people, and in particular the people with money, in Southern California live closer to LAX than ONT. Go back and look through the last two decades of history at LAWA, and essentially the entire Los Angeles political apparatus constantly trying to decentralize regional air service and push more of the volume out of LAX and to other airports in the area. It didn't work. For all the complaining about congestion and chaos, even when given a choice, huge volumes of people still consistently choose LAX. Thus why ONT is where it is - massively overbuilt (in terms of passenger, as opposed to cargo, infrastructure) and catering to the narrow, and far smaller, market of the Inland Empire.[/quo
That may be true, but that's exactly why Ontario would be the perfect airport for LCC's like Norwegian. They're not aiming at the rich people that live closer to LAX, they're aiming at the poorer ones like those that live near Ontario. The ones that wouldn't fly if it were too expensive, but if you're make it cheap or enough they will. And flying from Ontario is just the way to make it cheap.

Ontario wouldn't work for legacy airlines, they're better off at LAX. But that doesn't mean there is no market for Ontario, you just got to know where to look for it. I believe Ontario should be the LCC airport for Los Angeles, that's where their strength lies. That's the market they serve best. Airlines like Spirit, Allegiant and Norwegian are the ones that can benefit from the downsides of Ontario.

.

Southwest made ONT work AT ONE time. The telling part is they bolted once a opportunity arose at LAX terminal 1. I can't help but think they did make it work at one time for awhile why can't another. I'd hope a ulcc could hub out of ont if they were given a smoking deal but it would have to be a fairly decent cost saving because LAX is were the market has consolidated at.its going to take a little outside the box thinking.

Strane but lots of times it's cheaper at lax also. Lax to sfo I can get FC o around $250- 450 and if I don't enough book early SWA is and will be many times more for coach then FC at LAX.

Sadly all the reasons presented I just don't see it happening at ONT unless SWA changes strategy again.

SonomaFlyer · Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:17 pm

ONT wouldn't merit serious secondary international consideration to LAX until LAX is severely slot constrained AND there is a fast link from ONT to the key areas of LA via a dedicated rail link.

The previous point brought about income disparity and distance from LA proper all doom this idea without the preconditions above coming true.

BGS91762 · Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:40 pm

I am so tired of the statement that ONT is too far away from LA to be successful. The airport was never meant to serve those in the city of LA and the west side. The airport is great for those in the San Gabriel Valley, northern OC and the I.E. The fact is there is many areas of wealth within the service area of Ontario but we keep driving to LAX to get a good price and flight selection. I fly 3-4 times a month from Ontario and the flights are always full or oversold. Kind of unusual for an airport nobody wants to fly from.....

commavia · Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:58 pm

BGS91762 wrote:
I am so tired of the statement that ONT is too far away from LA to be successful.

And who is making that statement? I don't really think this discussion is about whether or not ONT can be successful, but rather about how "successful" is defined. It's true that ONT needs to optimize its cost structure - and the horribly overbuilt and superfluous terminal infrastructure obviously doesn't help there - but in general ONT certainly can be "successful," in general. What I think many are saying is that ONT cannot be successful as a "major secondary airport to LAX" - as the thread is titled. That is, indeed, unlikely for precisely the reason articulated below:

BGS91762 wrote:
The airport was never meant to serve those in the city of LA and the west side. The airport is great for those in the San Gabriel Valley, northern OC and the I.E.

ONT is unlikely to be a viable "major secondary airport to LAX" anytime in the foreseeable future because it was never designed to be, and because it is sub-optimally located to be.

BGS91762 wrote:
The fact is there is many areas of wealth within the service area of Ontario but we keep driving to LAX to get a good price and flight selection. I fly 3-4 times a month from Ontario and the flights are always full or oversold. Kind of unusual for an airport nobody wants to fly from.....

Again, nobody every said that "nobody wants to fly from" ONT. There are obviously millions of people every year who want to fly from ONT. But as said above, those people tend to be from the "service area" of ONT, including "San Gabriel Valley, northern OC and the I.E." As this thread describes, for those locales in Southern California that are equidistant between ONT and LAX, let alone closer to LAX, LAX is most likely to win nearly every time for the reasons already discussed. But it's absolutely true that there is a distinct market for ONT that has been there for many decades and isn't going anyway - thus why Southwest, AA, Alaska, United, Delta and two Mexican carriers fly there.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net