Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Chemist wrote:Honestly I'd like to see B6 just pull all the way out of LGB. LGB can pound sand. I'd be happy to see a couple more BUR flights instead. I don't know if WN can earn enough at LGB, if they can then they can take over, otherwise LGB becomes another Ontario and the residents can have their quiet and their economy can decline.
FlyinRabbit88 wrote:Voted 8-1 against the FIS facility at LGB.
isp2 wrote:I think the bigger question here is what JetBlue now does.
isp2 wrote:Had those proven successful, I think they would have also introduced Mint to LGB and tried really hard to market the combination of the new terminal / Mint product as a legitimate alternative to LAX. Both the new terminal and Mint truly are top notch products.
isp2 wrote:Now they are stuck operating 35 daily flights to inter-California cities (plus LAS/SLC/RNO/PDX/SEA) that really don't get you "too excited". The only reason they increased their activity in the past year was to slot squat so WN could not expand.
isp2 wrote:I would not be surprised if B6 came back with the proverbial middle finger to the LGB council and announced they were either reducing their operation to something less than 10 daily flights - or possibly folding it completely.
isp2 wrote:The bigger question is - what do they do then? They are space constricted in LAX operating out of a terminal that is comparable to LGA's CTB with no room for growth, without even considering they have zero ammenities for their premium fliers. This is a problem they should have tackled a long time ago but were way too shortsighted. I remember when they opened BUR in 2004 and handed out tee shirts that said "LAX... don't go there!"
It also goes to show how much a VA acquisition would have meant for JetBlue. What could have been.
NickLAX wrote:Don't know if it would even make sense to serve anything else out of SNA - they've never shown an appetite to serve JFK, which I think would do quite well with their onward feed.
commavia wrote:isp2 wrote:I think the bigger question here is what JetBlue now does.
From the Press-Telegram article:
“We are profoundly disappointed that after years of delay and a city-mandated study validating the safety, security and economic positive nature of the project, that the city council would reject the development of a Federal Inspection Station at Long Beach Airport,” he said. “JetBlue will evaluate its future plans for Long Beach, the greater Los Angeles area and California.” (emphasis mine)
Revelation wrote:FlyinRabbit88 wrote:Voted 8-1 against the FIS facility at LGB.
Keepin' America Strong! Who needs those furriners anyway?
usflyguy wrote:WN would gladly fly ~20 flights a day out of LGB.
flyingcat wrote:If B6 pulls up stakes how much will this hurt the city of Long Beach financially. Jetblue traffic contributes a large percentage of user fees. Would WN be willing or able to commit to expand that much more. They seems to have bigger fish to fry these days.
isp2 wrote:While LGB will always be at a revenue disadvantage to LAX, I think had the FIS been approved - B6 would have added several new Mexican and Canadian destinations. Had those proven successful, I think they would have also introduced Mint to LGB and tried really hard to market the combination of the new terminal / Mint product as a legitimate alternative to LAX. Both the new terminal and Mint truly are top notch products.
isp2 wrote:Now they are stuck operating 35 daily flights to inter-California cities (plus LAS/SLC/RNO/PDX/SEA) that really don't get you "too excited". The only reason they increased their activity in the past year was to slot squat so WN could not expand.
isp2 wrote:I would not be surprised if B6 came back with the proverbial middle finger to the LGB council and announced they were either reducing their operation to something less than 10 daily flights - or possibly folding it completely.
The bigger question is - what do they do then? They are space constricted in LAX operating out of a terminal that is comparable to LGA's CTB with no room for growth, without even considering they have zero ammenities for their premium fliers. This is a problem they should have tackled a long time ago but were way too shortsighted. I remember when they opened BUR in 2004 and handed out tee shirts that said "LAX... don't go there!"
isp2 wrote:I blame both sides in this one... an airline that had no west coast gameplan until it was too late, and alson a city council that bowed to pressure but apparantly did a real poor job of educating their constituients that a FIS would have zero impact of the 35 A320's buzzing in and out everyday.
bluefltspecial wrote:Delta is focused on Seattle and United is moving away from LAX in favor of SFO and consolidating a lot of operations there. That leaves AA/AS/VX really at LAX to contend with.
bluefltspecial wrote:In all honestly, having an arbitrary weight limit to determine commuter slots is downright nonsensical, especially when your slots are based on noise, and let's be honest- the noise restrictions were placed in effect when you had aircraft that were mainly powered by a less than quiet JT8D engine of some sort... 727s, 737s, DC-9s & MD-80s.
SurfandSnow wrote:If B6 is looking for opportunities from LGB where frequency is less of an issue they should consider ski markets (BZN, EGE, HDN, JAC, MTJ, etc.) and/or Hawaii. I have to think something like LGB-BZN or LGB-OGG would be higher yielding than LGB-MEX or LGB-SJD
richierich wrote:This result is a lose-lose situation. It's a loss for LGB airport, and ultimately maybe the city too, and it's a loss for B6 for sure. The airline made it quite clear they desired FIS facilities at Long Beach and now I think it is fair to question their commitment to the market. Not sure what other options they have or where they turn next, but I would be surprised if operations remain as they currently are two to three years out.
Revelation wrote:Keepin' America Strong! Who needs those furriners anyway?
PatrickZ80 wrote:From a European point of view I'm rather surprised that an airport of this size doesn't have a FIS. Here in Europe just about every airport, even the smallest ones that hardly see any traffic, have one. Take Groningen (GRQ) for example, this airport only sees an average of 4 flights a day. Still they got a full operational FIS, even if it's only being used for one flight each day.
Could that be because from Europe there are a lot more destinations for which a FIS is needed? I mean, the UK is not a part of Schengen so every flight from the UK has to pass through a FIS. There also are a lot of holiday flights to Turkey which is not part of Schengen either. Anyway, in Europe it's never a problem finding an airport that has a FIS. In America this problem is a lot bigger, this forces foreign airlines to use larger airports even when they might prefer smaller ones.
PatrickZ80 wrote:From a European point of view I'm rather surprised that an airport of this size doesn't have a FIS. Here in Europe just about every airport, even the smallest ones that hardly see any traffic, have one. Take Groningen (GRQ) for example, this airport only sees an average of 4 flights a day. Still they got a full operational FIS, even if it's only being used for one flight each day.
Could that be because from Europe there are a lot more destinations for which a FIS is needed? I mean, the UK is not a part of Schengen so every flight from the UK has to pass through a FIS. There also are a lot of holiday flights to Turkey which is not part of Schengen either. Anyway, in Europe it's never a problem finding an airport that has a FIS. In America this problem is a lot bigger, this forces foreign airlines to use larger airports even when they might prefer smaller ones.
If a US airline wants to start flights to Groningen, they can just do so. Only thing that might limit them is the runway length, but other than that there's no problem. The FIS is there. Opposite, if a European airline wants to start flights to Long Beach (which is much bigger than Groningen), they got a problem because it lacks a FIS.
Chemist wrote:Honestly I'd like to see B6 just pull all the way out of LGB. LGB can pound sand.
wnflyguy wrote:B6 could easily pull 10 flights from LGB and relocate them to SNA.
SNA always saves slots for new entrants.
SurfandSnow wrote:Given the track record of international service from the secondary Los Angeles area airports that have FIS (ONT and SNA) I thought this whole proposal was ludicrous in the first place....
Polot wrote:NickLAX wrote:Don't know if it would even make sense to serve anything else out of SNA - they've never shown an appetite to serve JFK, which I think would do quite well with their onward feed.
I don't think they have anything in their fleet that can fly SNA-JFK without significant weight restrictions (due to SNA's runway). Most airlines flying transcon from SNA are using 73Gs or 757s due to those plane's runway performance.
phxsanslcpdx wrote:Does anyone have a sense of how likely high-value B6 customers in New York & Boston are to connect via LGB now? It seems to me likely that LGB isn't adding much value to the B6 network... maybe it makes sense to just pretty much abandon SoCal.SurfandSnow wrote:Given the track record of international service from the secondary Los Angeles area airports that have FIS (ONT and SNA) I thought this whole proposal was ludicrous in the first place....
SBD also has FIS... and an even worse track record for international service (although not as long a track record, to be fair). B6 could move operations to SBD and have a monopoly, at least for a little while. I don't think it's likely, but interesting to consider.
Chemist wrote:Polot wrote:NickLAX wrote:Don't know if it would even make sense to serve anything else out of SNA - they've never shown an appetite to serve JFK, which I think would do quite well with their onward feed.
I don't think they have anything in their fleet that can fly SNA-JFK without significant weight restrictions (due to SNA's runway). Most airlines flying transcon from SNA are using 73Gs or 757s due to those plane's runway performance.
B6 flies BUR-JFK, does that take restrictions?
catiii wrote:Chemist wrote:Polot wrote:I don't think they have anything in their fleet that can fly SNA-JFK without significant weight restrictions (due to SNA's runway). Most airlines flying transcon from SNA are using 73Gs or 757s due to those plane's runway performance.
B6 flies BUR-JFK, does that take restrictions?
Burbank also has a runway 1000' feet longer than SNA's longest runway.
Chemist wrote:catiii wrote:Chemist wrote:
B6 flies BUR-JFK, does that take restrictions?
Burbank also has a runway 1000' feet longer than SNA's longest runway.
That's a good reason, I didn't realize the difference was that large.
I was thinking that probably because they usually land on 08 at BUR and that runway is similar in length to SNA.
bfitzflyer wrote:if B6 is going to expand on the West Coast, their choices are pretty limited.
SFO, UA and AS/VX.
LAX - UA, AA, DL, AS/VX and WN
Long Beach - very restricted
OAK - WN - so maybe but SW will fight them big time
Burbank - WN maybe quite small
SAN - WN. AS/VS focus, and pretty crowded as is..
ONT - could do this, but location for LA Basin is not ideal
SNA - slot controlled
SJC - WN, AS/VS - probably a decent opportunity here as AS/VS will likely do more at SFO now
SMF - WN has most flights, and a decent opportunity here, but not the biggest population base, but could work
So looking at this, i think they need to continue to split up flights in southern CA and maybe take a shot at SJC and add some flights at SMF. Oakland is an outside possibility if they want to go up against SW. Just my two cents, which of course can be ripped apart, but I just don't see much in he LA area for them to really build up as things stand now.
Polot wrote:Chemist wrote:catiii wrote:
Burbank also has a runway 1000' feet longer than SNA's longest runway.
That's a good reason, I didn't realize the difference was that large.
I was thinking that probably because they usually land on 08 at BUR and that runway is similar in length to SNA.
IIRC there are also issues with either terrain or noise abatement that also effects the take offs at SNA. But I could be wrong and be confusing SNA with another airport in southern CA.
slcdeltarumd11 wrote:B6 has only so many slots. Each international flight you add, one domestic would leave. Its worth more for local residents to have the frequent domestic destinations, maybe is the lines of thinking?
LGB is such a cool awesome airport, I think B6 is doing quite well there now. They have a niche.
JetBlue sponsors lots of things in Long Beach and is constantly a sponsor of events etc. People do seem to want to fly B6 first when possible, I dont think the relationship is as bad as a.net wants to make it seem. LGB is in a very crowded area, it is only fair to want to limit noise and have a fair plan.
We are talking about an airport that is slot controlled and very hard to get slots. Southwest is working hard to get slots there. If you read A.net you would think LGB is the next ONT, its the opposite of that. The airport limits service, the airlines want more slots! The so cal market is complex and there are a ton of airports, LGB has a niche, they are just choosing to stay smallish, its their choice. Obviosuly B6 would like more slots, but i still think its good for them, and what they are flying works.
bfitzflyer wrote:if B6 is going to expand on the West Coast, their choices are pretty limited.
SFO, UA and AS/VX.
LAX - UA, AA, DL, AS/VX and WN
Long Beach - very restricted
OAK - WN - so maybe but SW will fight them big time
Burbank - WN maybe quite small
SAN - WN. AS/VS focus, and pretty crowded as is..
ONT - could do this, but location for LA Basin is not ideal
SNA - slot controlled
SJC - WN, AS/VS - probably a decent opportunity here as AS/VS will likely do more at SFO now
SMF - WN has most flights, and a decent opportunity here, but not the biggest population base, but could work
So looking at this, i think they need to continue to split up flights in southern CA and maybe take a shot at SJC and add some flights at SMF. Oakland is an outside possibility if they want to go up against SW. Just my two cents, which of course can be ripped apart, but I just don't see much in he LA area for them to really build up as things stand now.
syvjeff wrote:I thought I'd toss out some wild ideas (just a spectator not a professional here) for Jet Blue now that the residents of Long Beach gave them the middle finger over the FIS (Customs Facility). BTW Cranky Flier really has the best coverage of this saga on his blog.
1. Jet Blue already has direct service coverage from the big cities of LAX/SFO & SAN to solid East Coast destinations; but how about they create a hub in Las Vegas to feed from some of the smaller California/Oregon/Washington markets to their key East Coast Destinations using some of their E-190s. To me for example their service from BUR is very light at 1 flight a day as an overnighter heading East and later in the day arrival from the East with a A320. They can make a larger beach head in Las Vegas of feeding multiple flights to meet up with a JFK, BOS or other Eastern destinations. LGB can retain some of their successful direct flights, but kick a few E-190s to LAS. Remember LAS is more than tourism and gambling, but even the tourism aspect gives some stability of demand year round. If they eventually need a FIS, use the existing one in Las Vegas.
2. I'm biased with this thought, so read through this one with this in mind; if they are in dire need of "growth" for growth sake, why don't they also use smaller under utilized airports (begging for business) like Santa Barbara/Santa Maria/San Luis Obispo/Monterrey-Salinas and larger airports like Palm Springs, Burbank, Ontario and Sacramento to feed into the Las Vegas hub. This could easily be managed by adjusting frequency to daily, seasonal or just a couple days a week flights. For example I've noticed that Allegiant has done very well running a Las Vegas flight with an MD-80 just 3 days a week from Santa Maria. Yes Allegiant isn't Jet Blue but it makes a great business study. These smaller airports have been affected by Regionals going to CRJs from Turbo Props (increasing seats available to sell), pilot shortages and readjusting of final destinations (like American Eagle only servicing Phoenix), so they are begging for more business.
3. The Vegas hub is also a way to get forward the West Coast and compete against Alaska/Virgin & Southwest.
LAXintl wrote:A Vegas hub hardly solves any issues of how to cover large markets like LA and SF.
A Vegas hub would be nothing more than repeat America West essentially which was a low yield operation chasing after the Vegas O&D and random transfer traffic. The hub even lost money for HP back in the day and was progressively pulled down.
At the end of the day, JetBlue need to answer what is it does with a presence in LA, the nations 2nd largest travel market.
FARmd90 wrote:I think LGB could become a great secondary airport to the LA area but only if an airline can get the city to allow them to expend its route offering enough to make it worth while for people to drive down and use it.
However, I think JetBlue's next best option is to stick it out in LGB and to try and convince the city and whoever else to get the E190s classified as regional jets and use the remaining slots in the "commuter" slot pool to expand the airport. How many slots are left in that pool? Also I think JetBlue needs to send the 321 core out there to free up slots by reducing frequency where able to, again to help free up slots for more expansion.
I also think JetBlue could do great in winter destinations/ski markets from LGB on a Saturday only schedule. They could pull down the more business markets like SFO/OAK/SJC on Saturdays and use those slots for say DEN/BIL/EGE. But this is more of dream/wish lol, I still stand by what I said above though!!