FlyinRabbit88
Topic Author
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:16 am

Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:32 am

Voted 8-1 against the FIS facility at LGB.
 
Jerseyguy
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:05 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:39 am

No surprise that NIMBY Beach..er I mean Long Beach voted down expansion
Webmaster of an unoffical TTN page see profile for details
 
grbauc
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:43 am

what would FIS of added maybe a Mexico or Canada flight or two. I wonder what the argument against it was.
 
isp2
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:57 am

I think the bigger question here is what JetBlue now does.

When JetBlue was the 9th biggest US carrier, they could get away with their token LGB focus city. They are now the 5th biggest US carrier and they really need a west coast presence.

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.

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.

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!"

It also goes to show how much a VA acquisition would have meant for JetBlue. What could have been.

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.

A real shame.
 
FlyinRabbit88
Topic Author
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:16 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:57 am

Lets see, residents felt that a FIS would be a means for other airlines to sue LGB to lift restrictions, increase crime rates, increase noise, etc etc etc....

One resident said "if jetBlue wanted to support the local economy they should buy Boeing aircraft not Airbus."
Others worried about property values going down, the discussions of JetBlue violated the noise restrictions over 130 times last year due to late / delayed flights, and that the economic benefits was a "what if" that the council and many residents said didn't want to wait to find out it wasn't worth the added risks to disrupt their community safety years down the road.

Many speakers who supported the FIS showed up from NBAA, JetBlue crew members and corporate, airport leaders, union officials/members in various trades,and residents, but were drowned out by many residents who feared increase crime, minimal financial gains, increase noise, and a what if panadoras box that airlines not flying into LGB could sue the government to destroy the noise restrictions at LGB.

Might be time for JetBlue to rethink growth at LGB.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:39 am

Not surprising. Was a long shot with many downsides not the least of which being financial risk and added cost recovery needed for the airport.

Additionally there was zero guarantee that CBP would even agree to staff the facility even if airport and tenants would fully reimburse the staffing cost.
The California Congressional delegation without luck for years has been trying to get Port of Entry designation for Stockton. SCK has designs for a Federal Inspection Station (FIS) facility to accommodate international service ready but until USCBP assures them staffing will be provided it wont be built out.

Also not in favor of JetBlue as brought up the carrier is not exactly a good neighbor. It has violated the airports curfew more than a hundred times in the last year, so its not earned many favors.

Lastly in my view LGB airport itself has a governance problem. Its the only large airport in California without a MasterPlan guiding its operations and development. Many of the projects in recent years have been adhoc without the airport, city and residents having the opportunity to offer input to develop and adopt a long term roadmap which will help legally guide the airports development and operations for the next couple of decades.
Moving forward with negotiations for an FIS facility would have been yet another decision taken in a vacuum without a solid long term vision for the airfield.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
bluefltspecial
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:27 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:46 am

From what I've heard, this is what B6 has been wanting in an effort to seriously tackle the West now after the VX/AS nonsense and pull some people that were loyal to VX that weren't so happy to join AS...

Being a good friend with LGB for a long time, it only made sense that they tried to focus there before heading to LAX and starting a large West operation (without any restrictions). I had somewhat anticipated that JetSuite would be able to fill the void of lighter aircraft slots (easily finding a place in the -I think- 15+ slots under 75k lbs) allowing for connections to A320 operations to longer distance flying, likely South with FIS operations.

I think LGB really missed the boat here, just my .02 here though. 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. Need I mention that DC-10s were built there (yes yes, I know, not JT8Ds but GE CF6 engines of some sort), the last one in '88... That being said today's E140/190s and A320s are mild by comparison...

Going forward though- I can't see Jetblue justifying operating LGB-LAS with $38 fares to slot squat long term, it just doesn't make sense when you can use the aircraft on other routes making more money. Perhaps they might still make LGB into a focus with JetSuite but I don't see it being as effective as if you had connections to Mexico and other points South with no competition in a niche market. I can see them staying where they are slot wise but also growing LAX into a larger operation, if they can find the gate space of course - perhaps terminal 0. Boston is starting to fill up and JFK is pretty much out of room and slots. They need to bulk up on the West and 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. AA has made the decision no more IFE on new aircraft, womp womp. Between that and having to pay for everything and getting little in return (and no option of IFE minus JFK), with JetBlue offering more for (usually/often) less price, and loyal VX passengers jumping to B6, I think this *could* be a perfect storm situation.

The legacy airlines didn't put up much of a fight when JetBlue started in JFK or when they went to Boston, I can only imagine that they will realize now that they will need to stand their ground if they don't want to lose any more market share in LAX. Again, just my .02
Save a horse, ride a Fly-boy....
 
Chemist
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:36 am

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.
 
FX1816
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:02 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:55 am

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.


Interesting saying that LGB could become the next Ontario. For that to happen LGB would have to add more operations and also operate 24/7 with no curfews.
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:01 am

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. Even if LGB weren't slot restricted it seemed like a very risky proposition for an airport that has long suffered from poor yields. 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...
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
 
flyingcat
Posts: 519
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:33 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:42 pm

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.
 
richierich
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:57 pm

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.

If there were any winners, it was the NIMBYs who protect that airport vigorously, many of whom, it should be noted, moved there long after the airport had been established. Yes, B6 broke curfew many times, but they also had by far the most flights to the airport - and paid the fines, most likely - so it really is of little concern considering the airport is a far less noisy place than it was two decades ago. By not looking after the airport's largest tenant, the airport might find themselves in a bit of a pickle soon...that shiny new terminal isn't going to pay for itself.
None shall pass!!!!
 
PanzerPowner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:53 pm

This is why i hate the NIMBYs. I live next to one in LB and jesus christ, they will not let up on their victory over LGB's FIS plans. Dear god what have they done? Rejecting a way for us to not go to KLAX and bend down and take KLAX for the trafficked, airport it is. Anyone remember the LAX Will Be The Same As A Holliday Everyday thread? Well so much for relief for that airport.
Well uh, I obviously decided to refine this but i dont know how.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21362
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:57 pm

FlyinRabbit88 wrote:
Voted 8-1 against the FIS facility at LGB.


Keepin' America Strong! Who needs those furriners anyway?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
usflyguy
Posts: 1727
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:29 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:24 pm

WN would gladly fly ~20 flights a day out of LGB.
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:31 pm

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)

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.


Maybe, but I doubt it. History has shown - consistently - the the highest yielding transcon traffic in and out of the L.A. Basin prefers LAX.

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.


True, but that would have been the case, anyway. LGB has limited potential not only because much of the regional O&D prefers LAX, but also because of its capacity cap. I agree, though, that this could potentially change JetBlue's view of the economic and strategic logic of the slot-sitting.

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.


Okay, although it sounds like for many people in Long Beach, JetBlue announcing that it's dramatically cutting its flying at LGB would be seen as a huge win!

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.


Indeed. It's still somewhat incredible to me that Virgin America ended up going to Alaska. I totally get why it was such a strategically critical defensive play for Alaska, but I totally agree that moves like this underscore why it would have been - in my view - an equally strategically critical offensive play for JetBlue. JetBlue now faces a pretty significant challenge in further penetrating the three largest and most important markets on the west coast - LAX, SFO and SEA.
 
NickLAX
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:01 pm

Wouldn't B6 be in a better position if looking to start limited Mexico flights to do this at SNA? They would get new carrier slot preference. Assuming this is to destinations NOT already saturated by AS and WN. Not sure how much flex they have on their LAX slots for moving a set to support Mexico service. This wouldn't require B6 to fully staff SNA as a full station as they contract out in many locations anyway. 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.
 
SWADawg
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:21 pm

B6 is quickly running out of viable organic growth options on the west coast. WN conversely is running out of viable organic growth options on the east coast. Interesting times ahead for both carriers.
My posts are my opinion only and do not reflect the views of Southwest Airlines
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:22 pm

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.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9615
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:32 pm

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)

Here's my opinion. This may have been a panacea for B6's problems before the Mexican bilateral was liberalized and I think the company marched forward with this effort on the basis of the official strategy, but I have to think that at the higher levels this strategy soured as airlines dumped tons of capacity into SJD/PVR and CUN from the LAX/SAN area after Mexico liberalized. They weren't going to make any real money from LGB-Mexico for a very long time. LGB-Hawaii (if the plane can make it with all the noise abatement procedures cutting into performance) is probably a much better opportunity.

I don't know if B6 will bail or not because they really have no other option that is better, but this was not a panacea. They can fly to Canada now. It's pre-clear to anywhere they would go, so that was rubbish. This was gonna be 3-4 flights max.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9615
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
FlyinRabbit88 wrote:
Voted 8-1 against the FIS facility at LGB.


Keepin' America Strong! Who needs those furriners anyway?

And yet 72.03% of the votes there were for the other party, oddly...
usflyguy wrote:
WN would gladly fly ~20 flights a day out of LGB.

If they do, it is only to squat on gates/slots to prevent another B6. They have no real economic interest in doing that apart from defense. It will just take passengers from their other flights if B6 is gone.
 
wnflyguy
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:39 pm

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.


B6 could easily pull 10 flights from LGB and relocate them to SNA.
SNA always saves seats aside for new entry airline.
Plus if B6 were to commit to adding international service from SNA the airport would bend over backwards to achieve it.
My beloved WN still has the lions share for seats out of SNA but come 2018 SNA could easily further reallocate seats to accommodate B6 at WN expense.
This would probably come at the result of B6 pulling service from LGB.
Which WN would easily fill the SNA reduction with LGB growth.
If B6 were to reduce LGB by even 5 flights WN would easily jump on the available slots for LAS and DEN service.

I honestly didn't see FIS passing at LGB.
Flyguy
my post are my opinion only and not those of southwest airlines and or airtran airlines.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6640
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:25 pm

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.


The FIS isn't really required for operations to or from any of the Canadian destinations B6 would be likely to serve, although LGB would have to be designated as a Port of Entry or User Fee Airport. That said, B6's large operations in three markets with significant volumes of Canadian traffic (NYC, BOS, FLL) haven't yet led to scheduled flights to Canada.

Mint to LGB is a non-starter. Even though the LGB terminal is a huge improvement over what was there before, LGB doesn't offer the proximity to wealth and business demand which LAX does. A product like Mint requires corporate travel where employees are allowed to book paid fares in a premium cabin or a significant base of wealthy customers willing to pay the significant premium to fly up front. LGB has neither. A handful of flights to SJD/CUN/MEX wouldn't change that, either.

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.


The short-haul intra-California markets, along with LAS/PHX/RNO/DEN/SLC/PDX/SEA, will always be the key markets for secondary L.A. Basin airports like LGB, BUR, ONT, and SNA. These markets generate enough demand to support non-stop service to multiple airports in the region, typically with several daily frequencies to each, and are also short enough that travel time to/from the airport is a significant proportion of the total travel time. When you're traveling to further-away cities with less total demand, the inconvenience of traveling to/dealing with LAX is outweighed by vastly superior schedule choices. The secondary airports in those markets are typically the option chosen by extremely price-sensitive passengers.

The slot restrictions at LGB will always be problematic for B6 because they limit the number of destinations which may be served with a commercially competitive schedule. Adding flights to Mexico would actually make that worse given that fewer slots would be available for the short-hauls; the Mexico flights are more about helping to fill the aircraft to/from markets like OAK/SJC/SMF/PDX/SEA. They're not terribly useful for supporting flights to BOS or JFK given that both are better-served to Mexico over FLL or MCO.

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!"


I have been baffled for years as to why they have continued to invest resources into LGB. Maybe they thought Long Beach would be so in love with them that they'd scrap the noise ordinance entirely? Fat chance in California. If they had taken advantage of the former TWA facilities in LAX T3 before VX started up, things might look quite different at LAX. Instead they have little hope of expanding at any L.A.-area airport.

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.


I don't think it's the City Council's job to educate its constituents with respect to the benefits of the project -- that duty fell squarely on B6. Unfortunately, the study commissioned by the airport found benefits to the region but few that would go directly to the city.

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.


Delta is absolutely focused on LAX as well -- or did you miss the fact that they're going to spend a planeload of money on renovating and connecting Terminals 2 & 3?

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.


No doubt B6 had hoped to use commuter slots for E190 operations at LGB, but even a casual observer of the LGB slot regime would understand that the City has been extremely apprehensive of making any modifications to the slot ordinance lest it lose its grandfathered status under ANCA. Also, keep in mind that having the commuter slots go unused has been somewhat beneficial in that more slots were recently created as a result of the airport coming in under its noise budget as prescribed in the ordinance.

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


Those markets would indeed be higher-yielding, but also very difficult to fill given B6's small market position in the L.A. region and LGB's location.

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.


B6's operation at LGB was a lot smaller just a year ago -- before WN expressed an interest in the new slots which were created as well as any slots which were unused by incumbent carriers. They're faced with a quandary in that if they reduce service significantly, WN will snap up some or all of the freed-up slots, and they have few other options in the L.A. market. I agree that if B6 were to exit LGB or reduce operations to fewer than ten daily flights, it would be problematic for the airport financially (I think WN would grow to a dozen or so daily departures given the slots) but then the local opposition to commercial service at the airport would have largely achieved its goal.

Revelation wrote:
Keepin' America Strong! Who needs those furriners anyway?


You really think voters in the LGB catchment were really the type to support that statement given the November totals for L.A. County? Really?
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3913
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:36 pm

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.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6640
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:44 pm

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.


Arguably this is probably a relic of the pre-Schengen days in which virtually every European airport required immigration & customs as most intra-European flights crossed national borders.
 
flyby519
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:03 pm

How about ONT? More airline friendly area with existing FIS?
 
b6sea
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:44 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:35 pm

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.


A lot of airports along the borders have CBP inspection capabilities, even those that do not receive commercial service, but they are limited to aircraft with fewer than 19(?) passengers. I'm not sure if they're permanently staffed or if you have to call ahead of time and they send someone out, but there are a ton of airports that technically have the capability to handle international flights of some kind.

To me, it seems like the FIS facilities are located at bigger airports because most international airlines flying to the US tend to want to connect to airports where their passengers can connect to/from another airline, which means mostly hub airports. And then airlines flying from Canada have pre-clearance in a lot of airports. But most major (and many minor) markets have an airport with FIS capability. They may not have multiple, but they have at least one. Greater Los Angeles does happen to have several though, just LGB isn't one of them, and I'm sure there are reasons why, I doubt it's completely random.

That said, I think it comes down to cost. CBP probably won't cover the cost of a full FIS if the airport or airlines won't cover some of the cost/guarantee the service is necessary. This isn't totally unusual, Canada requires Amtrak (and the state of Washington) to pay for customs/immigration inspection of Amtrak trains headed to Vancouver at Pacific Central Station in Vancouver, despite the fact that the US picks up the tab for US pre-clearance at Pacific Central.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:59 pm

Chemist wrote:
Honestly I'd like to see B6 just pull all the way out of LGB. LGB can pound sand.


I'd venture to guess many in the community would throw a big party actually instead. So hardly the threat I would use if I was B6 as it would backfire.

wnflyguy wrote:
B6 could easily pull 10 flights from LGB and relocate them to SNA.
SNA always saves slots for new entrants.


New entrant (if allowed at all) would receive 3-slots their first year.

Could take decades to achieve any more. Also there is no automatic guarantee new entrant will be allowed entry every year.. Some years based ongoing activity no entrants are allows and carriers must continue on the wait list..
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
phxsanslcpdx
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:36 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:41 pm

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
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:06 am

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?
 
User avatar
jnev3289
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:45 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:36 am

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.


An SBD reference! Now we're talking, lets get crazy
 
catiii
Posts: 3154
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:47 am

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?


Burbank also has a runway 1000' feet longer than SNA's longest runway.
 
Chemist
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:33 am

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.


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.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9471
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:42 pm

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.

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.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9615
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:46 pm

This was apparently such a shock to B6 that they asked for LGB-MEX slots only a few days earlier. :(
 
bfitzflyer
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:02 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:21 pm

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.
 
flyby519
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:29 pm

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.


SFO, LAX, SAN, SNA are all pretty tight in terms of gate space and/or slots. I can't see B6 adding more than 1-3 flights at any of those stations.

If B6 wants to build a meaningful west coast network that captures north-south traffic as well as transcons then SJC would be the best bet, but still an iffy proposition. OAK would be a bloodbath with SW, BUR would be tough for transcons, SMF and ONT would be tough to make work with their geographic positions being relative to population/business centers.

I really don't think B6 will have a meaningful west coast presence unless they merge with AS (years down the road).
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13992
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:56 pm

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.


I can't speak to B6 aircraft because I'm virtually always on a Boeing ex-SNA, but the 73G and 738 are quiet and powerful enough that the noise abatement procedures at SNA don't affect the takeoff profile much on most days.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:09 pm

B6 could build up OAK or SJC, but they could have done that all along and decided to focus on SFO. They'd have a big fight with WN at either and AS/VX at SJC. It seems most likely path forward is the path they've been on. There aren't really any other great options.
 
syvjeff
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:17 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sat Jan 28, 2017 10:22 pm

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.
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4383
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:25 am

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.
 
FX1816
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:02 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:39 am

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.



I enjoy this part about LGB becoming the next ONT, if they were to do that they'd have to ADD service and be open 24/7, not going to happen. At least know what you are talking about.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:46 pm

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.


I agree - JetBlue has options for further growth along the west coast, but those options are fairly limited. Just about every major airport of consequence in the western time zone comes with competitive challenges, operational limitations, or both. This further underscores why Virgin America would have been so strategically valuable to JetBlue - but, alas, it is not to be. It will be very interesting to see how JetBlue further develops its presence in the western U.S. in the coming years.
 
flyby519
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Sun Jan 29, 2017 7:42 pm

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.


LAS is a good idea that could consolidate some CA traffic going transcon and offer more frequency to airports that typically only see B6 once or twice a day (BUR, SMF, RNO). It would be a tough sell for any north-south connections along the west coast unless you're going deeper into Mexico. The JetBlue/JetSuiteX partnership might be well placed into something like this. JetSuiteX E135s for the smaller tertiary airports and JetBlue E190s for the primary/secondary airports:

Image
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:45 am

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.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
PanzerPowner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:08 am

As a Long Beach resident, I was looking forwards to FIS, with the jack### uneducated shooting it down leaving me with the options of hellhole international airports in the surrounding areas, i was really looking forwards for a way to get flights to Canada and Mexico without sludging through LAX and where it gets it's own thread of it's horridness, Burbank with it's deathtrap terminal vicinity to a runway, and ONT just being ONT. I won't even refer to ONT as Ontario. Then again I AM biased towards a FIS KLGB.
Well uh, I obviously decided to refine this but i dont know how.
 
flyby519
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:36 pm

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.


As far as LAX terminal construction, is there any chance of gaining meaningful space to expand operations for B6 there? From what I've read UA/DL/AA/WN/AS seem to have higher priority since they have larger footprints there already. LAX would be ideal, and really the only good option, just not sure if that's a pipe dream for B6.
 
FARmd90
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:49 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:56 pm

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!!
 
PanzerPowner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:11 pm

What, if. JetBlue were to dare i say. Attempt to privatize the airport with a "puppet" company that appears to have little connections to JetBlue. But then again i am still crabby about the FIS not passing in city council.
Well uh, I obviously decided to refine this but i dont know how.
 
flyby519
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

Re: Long Beach city council rejects FIS at LGB

Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:50 pm

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!!


25 Commuter slots are unused as of 11/16:

http://www.lgb.org/civicax/filebank/blo ... lobID=3177

I can't see LGB changing the rules to allow something greater than 75,000lbs MTOW to use those slots. Wouldn't a change like that put their whole slot control authority in jeopardy? But I could see JetSuite moving in and expand with E135s using those slots and the JetBlue partnership. Also, at some point I'd say AA will drop their 5 Air Carrier slots.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos