Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
tphuang
Posts: 5703
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:31 am

For what it's worth, cranky flier has an article on this
http://crankyflier.com/2017/08/15/long- ... u-jetblue/

ScottB wrote:

I guess that makes WN happy to compete with other carriers! The difference is that WN's service is more useful for a broader segment of the population (i.e. more service to more popular markets), which might help explain why they're more successful in Southern California.

They will get killed to SFO/LAS/SMF at BUR just as they do now at LGB because they will offer inadequate frequency to be competitive with WN & UA. The market to AUS won't profitably support two daily flights outside of April.

Yields at LGB were trash even when B6 only had about 25 daily flights. WN's entry into LGB-OAK depressed yields in the LGB-SFO & LGB-OAK airport pairs by under 10%. LGB-JFK is actually up year-over-year.


I do think yield won't get drastically better at BUR, but there are a couple of advantages at BUR:
1) the area between LAX and BUR are where the big contracts are in LA. They have a much better chance of winning those contracts when the transcon/international fly out of LAX and more local stuff fly out of BUR rather than LAX and LGB. On top of that, Jetsuite is at BUR, which gives those ff quicker access to LAS and bay area. As a whole, it will be a gain.
2) They won't get fined at BUR as much as LGB.
3) The area around BUR is wealthier, so I think it is higher yielding overall than LGB. Which has been really low yielding since B6 added those flights to "squat on slots"
4) They could possibly offer mint flight to JFK out of BUR based on 1) and 3), which I think is not possible out of LGB.

Since B6 added those LAS/OAK/SJC flights last year, that's when they flipped from making small profit to loosing money. You can't keep that going. The best way to do that is keep the flights that still do ok at LGB like the SFO flights (with no UA competition) and reduced LAS schedule + flights to SEA/PDX (with no AS competition). As for flights to places like bay area/SMF/LAS/SLC out of BUR, they have to offer them if they want to add to west coast presence. And they will face the same competition out of LGB.
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4911
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:51 am

B6 can serve a pretty large number of people out of LGB.
I think they compete more for SNA for passengers then LAX really. Its B6s airport for Long Beach/Anaheim/Disney/Huntington Beach/Orange/Fullerton etc etc. If SNA had the room for the focus city back when B6 launched in the area, i think they would have settled there instead. It was the so cal airport that was being underutilized so they moved in and made it home. Back in 2001 LGB was very underutilized when they rolled into town.


B6 does has a very loyal cult like following on its JFK-BUR flight. It is a success, but the number of people who really love it is small. Ain't room for expansion on that route, it has a small niche market that loves it.

tphuang wrote:
1) the area between LAX and BUR are where the big contracts are in LA. They have a much better chance of winning those contracts when the transcon/international fly out of LAX and more local stuff fly out of BUR rather than LAX and LGB. On top of that, Jetsuite is at BUR, which gives those ff quicker access to LAS and bay area. As a whole, it will be a gain.
.


Contracts are so 1997 not 2017. Most nowdays are just a minor kickback percentage if the employee flies that airline, and most employers still want their employees on the cheapest airline or best timed flights. Almost all employers let their employees pick flights or force them onto the cheapest flights. Contracts are only relevant on international long haul for businesses that buy business class, or JFK-LAX/SFO/SEA for compaies who buy business class. B6 wouldn't gain anything by moving from LGB to BUR because of contracts. BUR doesn't have room for B6s operation, I think they would see much higher operating costs, and I think they would see even lower yields fighting with LAX for passengers.
 
twaconnie
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:18 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:59 pm

F27500 wrote:
Utter nonsense. And JetBlue should give LGB a giant middle finger and move their SoCal ops to an airport that takes a less antagonistic approach to a good tenant

Curfews are BS anyway. Kissing the behinds of "neighbors" who BOUGHT A HOUSE NEXT TO AN AIRPORT.

Too bad. (In my opinion).


I couldn't agree with you more. If you don't like hurricanes,you don't move into a hurricane region..
 
nine4nine
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:52 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
B6 can serve a pretty large number of people out of LGB.
I think they compete more for SNA for passengers then LAX really. Its B6s airport for Long Beach/Anaheim/Disney/Huntington Beach/Orange/Fullerton etc etc. If SNA had the room for the focus city back when B6 launched in the area, i think they would have settled there instead. It was the so cal airport that was being underutilized so they moved in and made it home. Back in 2001 LGB was very underutilized when they rolled into town.


B6 does has a very loyal cult like following on its JFK-BUR flight. It is a success, but the number of people who really love it is small. Ain't room for expansion on that route, it has a small niche market that loves it.

tphuang wrote:
1) the area between LAX and BUR are where the big contracts are in LA. They have a much better chance of winning those contracts when the transcon/international fly out of LAX and more local stuff fly out of BUR rather than LAX and LGB. On top of that, Jetsuite is at BUR, which gives those ff quicker access to LAS and bay area. As a whole, it will be a gain.
.


Contracts are so 1997 not 2017. Most nowdays are just a minor kickback percentage if the employee flies that airline, and most employers still want their employees on the cheapest airline or best timed flights. Almost all employers let their employees pick flights or force them onto the cheapest flights. Contracts are only relevant on international long haul for businesses that buy business class, or JFK-LAX/SFO/SEA for compaies who buy business class. B6 wouldn't gain anything by moving from LGB to BUR because of contracts. BUR doesn't have room for B6s operation, I think they would see much higher operating costs, and I think they would see even lower yields fighting with LAX for passengers.




How do you figure BUR does not have room for a larger B6 op? Before they got into LAX they had 4xJFK, 1xIAD, 1xFLL, and 1xMCO which I believe replace the IAD flight.

As of now at BUR:
Gates-14
Carriers-8

Southwest-52 total
American- 3 total
Alaska/Horizon- 9 total
jetBlue- 1 total
United/United Expeess- 8 total
Delta Connection- 4 total
JetSuiteX- 5 total

Daily Gate Use-82 flights
Daily Gate Average- 5.857 flights per gate

Now if you average 10 flights per gate at 14 gates
You get;

14 gates x's 10 flt average ea: 140 daily flights
58 additional flights a day can fit into that average of 10 flights per gate from the current 82. There is a good size of expansion at hand here for any carrier and any incoming carrier. B6 can practically double LGB ops!
717, 727-100, 727-200, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 742, 748, 752, 753, 762, 763, 772, 77W, 787-10, DC9, MD80/88/90, DC10, 319, 220-300, 320, 321, 321n, 332, 333, CS100, CRJ200, Q400, E175, E190, ERJ145, EMB120
 
ScottB
Posts: 7191
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:48 pm

nine4nine wrote:
Now if you average 10 flights per gate at 14 gates
You get;

14 gates x's 10 flt average ea: 140 daily flights
58 additional flights a day can fit into that average of 10 flights per gate from the current 82. There is a good size of expansion at hand here for any carrier and any incoming carrier. B6 can practically double LGB ops!


You are assuming that the airport can (or wants to) force the airlines to share gates at BUR. The way I read those flight counts would be:

Southwest: 6 gates
American: 1 gate
Alaska/Horizon: 1-2 gates
United/United Express: 2 gates
Delta Connection: 1 gate

That leaves two or three gates for JetBlue. And believe me, the voluntary curfew at BUR is only voluntary because the airport cannot impose a mandatory curfew. If B6 were to move its operation from LGB in part because BUR can't fine them (i.e. they'll continue to chronically violate the curfew, just at BUR) you can bet money that BUR won't be eager to help B6 expand. B6 may be able to operate within schedule gaps at gates preferentially-leased by other airlines, but then that can pose its own operational issues.

tphuang wrote:
1) the area between LAX and BUR are where the big contracts are in LA. They have a much better chance of winning those contracts when the transcon/international fly out of LAX and more local stuff fly out of BUR rather than LAX and LGB. On top of that, Jetsuite is at BUR, which gives those ff quicker access to LAS and bay area. As a whole, it will be a gain.


I still think they'd have a challenge just due to the poor breadth of service at BUR and the split operation.

tphuang wrote:
Since B6 added those LAS/OAK/SJC flights last year, that's when they flipped from making small profit to loosing money. You can't keep that going. The best way to do that is keep the flights that still do ok at LGB like the SFO flights (with no UA competition) and reduced LAS schedule + flights to SEA/PDX (with no AS competition).


So I agree completely that LGB is problematic strategically, and that is in large part because B6's response was to squat on slots. Given that part of AS's strategy for the VX acquisition is to increase breadth of service in California, I can easily see AS returning to SEA/PDX-LGB to try to push B6 out of those markets. I think it's also likely that either WN or UA would add SFO-LGB if slots were to become available, especially as UA seems more interested in fighting harder in the domestic market now.

The issue is that LGB is the only L.A.-region airport (apart from ONT which doesn't match their target demographic) where there's enough space available for B6 to have an operation of that size. So they make LGB work or wait until another opportunity becomes available (like merging with AS).
 
nine4nine
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:45 pm

ScottB wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Now if you average 10 flights per gate at 14 gates
You get;

14 gates x's 10 flt average ea: 140 daily flights
58 additional flights a day can fit into that average of 10 flights per gate from the current 82. There is a good size of expansion at hand here for any carrier and any incoming carrier. B6 can practically double LGB ops!


You are assuming that the airport can (or wants to) force the airlines to share gates at BUR. The way I read those flight counts would be:

Southwest: 6 gates
American: 1 gate
Alaska/Horizon: 1-2 gates
United/United Express: 2 gates
Delta Connection: 1 gate

That leaves two or three gates for JetBlue. And believe me, the voluntary curfew at BUR is only voluntary because the airport cannot impose a mandatory curfew. If B6 were to move its operation from LGB in part because BUR can't fine them (i.e. they'll continue to chronically violate the curfew, just at BUR) you can bet money that BUR won't be eager to help B6 expand. B6 may be able to operate within schedule gaps at gates preferentially-leased by other airlines, but then that can pose its own operational issues.

tphuang wrote:
1) the area between LAX and BUR are where the big contracts are in LA. They have a much better chance of winning those contracts when the transcon/international fly out of LAX and more local stuff fly out of BUR rather than LAX and LGB. On top of that, Jetsuite is at BUR, which gives those ff quicker access to LAS and bay area. As a whole, it will be a gain.


I still think they'd have a challenge just due to the poor breadth of service at BUR and the split operation.

tphuang wrote:
Since B6 added those LAS/OAK/SJC flights last year, that's when they flipped from making small profit to loosing money. You can't keep that going. The best way to do that is keep the flights that still do ok at LGB like the SFO flights (with no UA competition) and reduced LAS schedule + flights to SEA/PDX (with no AS competition).


So I agree completely that LGB is problematic strategically, and that is in large part because B6's response was to squat on slots. Given that part of AS's strategy for the VX acquisition is to increase breadth of service in California, I can easily see AS returning to SEA/PDX-LGB to try to push B6 out of those markets. I think it's also likely that either WN or UA would add SFO-LGB if slots were to become available, especially as UA seems more interested in fighting harder in the domestic market now.

The issue is that LGB is the only L.A.-region airport (apart from ONT which doesn't match their target demographic) where there's enough space available for B6 to have an operation of that size. So they make LGB work or wait until another opportunity becomes available (like merging with AS).




The City of Burbank is not only building a new terminal because of the current terminals constraints due to its proximity to an active runway, but also to modernize and offer an attractive new facility to draw in more carries and more service. I think the airport commission would have zero qualms about having airlines like DL (4 daily) and AA (3 daily) share their gates. They could squeeze UA (8 daily) from 3 gates to 2. On top of the 3 dedicated gates they can pick up they can also have another 2 possibly 3 shared gates.

With every west coast airport other than BUR and ONT, most facilities are completely maxed out or have a HUB or major focus city set up by one or more carriers. If B6 wants to have a sizeable presence of a west coast focus city those are really the only two viable options.

Unfortunately that ship sailed long ago and had B6 looked elsewhere more opportunity would have been available around 2000 like SEA,SAN,SFO, SJC but Alaska, Virgin America, And delta swooped in and created sizeable ops at all of these airports.


Slim pickings out west right now.
717, 727-100, 727-200, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 742, 748, 752, 753, 762, 763, 772, 77W, 787-10, DC9, MD80/88/90, DC10, 319, 220-300, 320, 321, 321n, 332, 333, CS100, CRJ200, Q400, E175, E190, ERJ145, EMB120
 
ScottB
Posts: 7191
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:32 pm

nine4nine wrote:
The City of Burbank is not only building a new terminal because of the current terminals constraints due to its proximity to an active runway, but also to modernize and offer an attractive new facility to draw in more carries and more service.


Even accepting that as axiomatically true, the Airport Authority (not the City) also agreed to continue pursuing authorization for a mandatory curfew as part of the agreement for the new terminal. They are not going to pursue growth by JetBlue if part of the reason for that growth is B6's inability to comply with the LGB curfew!
 
tphuang
Posts: 5703
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:04 pm

This probably has been argued to death by this point.
What are their options:
1) stay at LGB with their current operation and loose a lot of money and get fined.
2) Cut down on their operation at LGB and move the planes back to East Coast which might help with their on time issues.
3) Drastically cut down operation at LGB and move most of it to ONT. Set up a hub out there.
4) Cut down operation at LGB to 10 to 15 flights and move rest of it to BUR and set up a hub there.

For reasons I've already, I think 4) is the best, especially to get big contracts. In terms of gates, the WN's 6 gates are probably not touchable. So B6 can probably get 2 exclusive gates and another one if they show commitment to the market. Also they do plenty of red eye flights when nobody else is flying out, so they might be able to use AA/DL's gates during their slack time. They can start off by building up to 20 flights and expand from there if they are doing well. There is enough gate space to build up an operation of 25 to 30 daily flights at BUR. There is no reason to give up on LGB entirely. With a reduced operation at both and some better conditions at JFK/BOS, they can probably get the curfew situation down to a more manageable level. I just don't think they care enough about LGB at this point to try harder.
 
flyby519
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:33 pm

Right now B6 is the dominant carrier at LGB and if they go anywhere else on the west coast then they are a very small fish in the pond. At LGB they can keep WN/DL/UA/AA/AS to a minimal presence. If only they could make money doing it!

Going to ONT or BUR is just asking for WN to obliterate them.
 
nine4nine
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:56 pm

LGB is slot controlled as is SNA. The others are not. Why would you want to stay put in a market that cannot sustain more than 30 flights, fines you $6k for a late arrival, and is now threatening reducing your slots for consistently producing delayed arrivals past curfew. If I were an airline CEO which I clearly am not, I would sure as heck shut down LGB ops. I don't see the economics or benefit of a low yielding focus city with such restrictions.

I'm not anti-LGB as I use the airport quite frequently on B6 and love the new facility there, I just wish the local community didn't have so much of control over an airfield that's been in place since 1919. if you were a vegetarian would you move next door to a slaughterhouse?
717, 727-100, 727-200, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 742, 748, 752, 753, 762, 763, 772, 77W, 787-10, DC9, MD80/88/90, DC10, 319, 220-300, 320, 321, 321n, 332, 333, CS100, CRJ200, Q400, E175, E190, ERJ145, EMB120
 
flyby519
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:10 pm

nine4nine wrote:
LGB is slot controlled as is SNA. The others are not. Why would you want to stay put in a market that cannot sustain more than 30 flights, fines you $6k for a late arrival, and is now threatening reducing your slots for consistently producing delayed arrivals past curfew. If I were an airline CEO which I clearly am not, I would sure as heck shut down LGB ops. I don't see the economics or benefit of a low yielding focus city with such restrictions.

I'm not anti-LGB as I use the airport quite frequently on B6 and love the new facility there, I just wish the local community didn't have so much of control over an airfield that's been in place since 1919. if you were a vegetarian would you move next door to a slaughterhouse?


It's a problem with no good solutions. Either stay in LGB and lose money while you fight the locals, or move to ONT/BUR/etc and lose money while you fight the competitors. Or, option C, give up completely on west coast based passengers and wait for the merger with AS.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5703
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:20 pm

flyby519 wrote:
Right now B6 is the dominant carrier at LGB and if they go anywhere else on the west coast then they are a very small fish in the pond. At LGB they can keep WN/DL/UA/AA/AS to a minimal presence. If only they could make money doing it!

Going to ONT or BUR is just asking for WN to obliterate them.

You forget that they fly to a bunch of places no one else flies to and they already have competition to those other places at lgb. Wn is maxed out at Burbank with 52 flights from 6 gates
 
atl100million
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 1:28 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:49 pm

tphuang wrote:
This probably has been argued to death by this point.
What are their options:
1) stay at LGB with their current operation and loose a lot of money and get fined.
2) Cut down on their operation at LGB and move the planes back to East Coast which might help with their on time issues.
3) Drastically cut down operation at LGB and move most of it to ONT. Set up a hub out there.
4) Cut down operation at LGB to 10 to 15 flights and move rest of it to BUR and set up a hub there.

For reasons I've already, I think 4) is the best, especially to get big contracts. In terms of gates, the WN's 6 gates are probably not touchable. So B6 can probably get 2 exclusive gates and another one if they show commitment to the market. Also they do plenty of red eye flights when nobody else is flying out, so they might be able to use AA/DL's gates during their slack time. They can start off by building up to 20 flights and expand from there if they are doing well. There is enough gate space to build up an operation of 25 to 30 daily flights at BUR. There is no reason to give up on LGB entirely. With a reduced operation at both and some better conditions at JFK/BOS, they can probably get the curfew situation down to a more manageable level. I just don't think they care enough about LGB at this point to try harder.


The most obvious solution but which won't generate anywhere near the same level of discussion as other options is simply for B6 to retime their LGB operation so they have fewer flights operating close to the curfew. Retiming their LGB operation will cost them some airplane time but it is a whole lot easier to add an additional plane's worth of time to the west coast than relocate a fairly large operation to an airport where they have to start from scratch.
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 3310
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:33 am

As much as I think LGB is a great airport, I think B6 will soon begin scaling down its operation - for a few reasons:

(1) The additional capacity (added to keep WN from taking slots) made LGB go from marginally profitable to marginally (or potentially significantly) unprofitable. The flights to SJC are empty, and they aren't making money on $60 fares to LAS.
(2) The higher fines will materially impact the margins of any flights subject to it. 130 late arrivals this year would mean 4 days of all B6 arrivals at LGB... Yikes!
(3) B6 is short on planes, and could redeploy these birds to BOS and FLL which still have ample growth opportunities.
(4) B6 should continue to build on its LAX presence when opportunities arise, and perhaps find a way to get in on the new Terminal 0 down the road. Obviously now ideal in the short-term, but there really aren't many other viable options right now. And by then, VX may be ready to make a transaction again...
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:01 am

nine4nine wrote:
LGB is slot controlled as is SNA. The others are not. Why would you want to stay put in a market that cannot sustain more than 30 flights, fines you $6k for a late arrival, and is now threatening reducing your slots for consistently producing delayed arrivals past curfew. If I were an airline CEO which I clearly am not, I would sure as heck shut down LGB ops. I don't see the economics or benefit of a low yielding focus city with such restrictions.

I'm not anti-LGB as I use the airport quite frequently on B6 and love the new facility there, I just wish the local community didn't have so much of control over an airfield that's been in place since 1919. if you were a vegetarian would you move next door to a slaughterhouse?


That's precisely why you might stay put. LGB may not be raking in the money but it's THEIR airport to a large degree. The limited access really inhibits other carriers from providing meaningful competition aside from RJ's to hubs. The fact that WN getting in has caused such a stir speaks to the importance of keeping as many slots as possible to themselves - unfortunately, WN got in.

I once had a boss that owned a shortline railroad among other businesses and he commented once that he liked to own businesses with a monopoly (his words - I'd change it to 'market control' or 'soul source provider'). Anyhow, B6 has somewhat of a control over LGB slots which gives them a bit of a dominant control of the market. While not overly profitable, it's probably better than spreading themselves thin across multiple airports unless they are ready to give up a hub presence (of sorts) in the west.

jetbluefan1 wrote:
And by then, VX may be ready to make a transaction again...


Is this a type or a coy way of referring to AS? :-)
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 3310
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:47 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
LGB is slot controlled as is SNA. The others are not. Why would you want to stay put in a market that cannot sustain more than 30 flights, fines you $6k for a late arrival, and is now threatening reducing your slots for consistently producing delayed arrivals past curfew. If I were an airline CEO which I clearly am not, I would sure as heck shut down LGB ops. I don't see the economics or benefit of a low yielding focus city with such restrictions.

I'm not anti-LGB as I use the airport quite frequently on B6 and love the new facility there, I just wish the local community didn't have so much of control over an airfield that's been in place since 1919. if you were a vegetarian would you move next door to a slaughterhouse?


That's precisely why you might stay put. LGB may not be raking in the money but it's THEIR airport to a large degree. The limited access really inhibits other carriers from providing meaningful competition aside from RJ's to hubs. The fact that WN getting in has caused such a stir speaks to the importance of keeping as many slots as possible to themselves - unfortunately, WN got in.

I once had a boss that owned a shortline railroad among other businesses and he commented once that he liked to own businesses with a monopoly (his words - I'd change it to 'market control' or 'soul source provider'). Anyhow, B6 has somewhat of a control over LGB slots which gives them a bit of a dominant control of the market. While not overly profitable, it's probably better than spreading themselves thin across multiple airports unless they are ready to give up a hub presence (of sorts) in the west.

jetbluefan1 wrote:
And by then, VX may be ready to make a transaction again...


Is this a type or a coy way of referring to AS? :-)


I agree that in theory a monopoly (or "soul source provider") should allow B6 to be profitable. But LGB has shown to be a low-yielding airport in general, and it only got lower with WN's entrance forcing B6 to increase capacity. That said, B6 may have better success if it trims some of the flying to LAS/SLC/SJC and adds a few flights to PHX, DEN, and maybe even ORD. It would have the dual advantage of decreasing overcapacity to existing markets while introducing several Top 20 (Top 10?) markets from the LA basin.

And it was certainly a Freudian slip - promise :)
 
Block
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:44 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:58 pm

B6 can run an operation likeable to SJU, so they can run on new opportunities, but not cut LGB routes
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 776
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:33 pm

He claims best bet is for b6 to just walk away from LGB

http://crankyflier.com/2017/08/21/jetbl ... walk-away/
 
WesternA318
Posts: 4603
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:55 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:00 pm

WWads wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
B6 should pull out of LGB and reinforce LAX and BUR to capacity. The City of Long Beach is business prohibitive and the airport should be razed. Having a community of fanatical NIMBY's surrounding an airport that has been there before well before most of these people and their parents, it's amazing how the city panders to them. It's no wonder the city is a dump. Downtown is completely run down and full of Hobos. Long Beach has so much potential for high tourism but they prefer to cater to the local lynch mob and paid off local politicians and install a ridiculous cap on flights and a stiff curfew.


It's a simmering problem at DCA too. The entitled lobbyists/contractors surrounding the airport whine and complain about the noise, yet chose to live near an airport that's been there for decades.

I still say the best solution to the problem is to fly MD88s overhead every 30 min.



I say AA and DL fly in un-hushed 727's just for them, and in LGB give B6 some unhushed DC-9-50's...*evil grin*
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4911
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:13 pm

B6 could simply push their late flights up in time. They will probably need to look into that.
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 3310
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:31 am

CobaltScar wrote:
He claims best bet is for b6 to just walk away from LGB

http://crankyflier.com/2017/08/21/jetbl ... walk-away/


He makes a good argument. Redeploying those A320's to bolster BOS/FLL/JFK is likely to be far more profitable for B6, and also serves a strategic goal of fastening leading positions in its East Coast focus cities. Use new Mint deliveries to bolster West Coast transcon flying. As long as AS continues to compete with a subpar premium product (not just to B6, but to the Big 3), B6 should be able to secure some HVC's from the West Coast.

I think the end game here is that B6 waits 7-8 years and then merges with AS. Two powerhouses on their respective coasts (absent an unforeseen event or other unplanned factors) - a match made in heaven....at least from an airline enthusiast's perspective : :lol:
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 484
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:35 am

jetbluefan1 wrote:
CobaltScar wrote:
He claims best bet is for b6 to just walk away from LGB

http://crankyflier.com/2017/08/21/jetbl ... walk-away/


He makes a good argument. Redeploying those A320's to bolster BOS/FLL/JFK is likely to be far more profitable for B6, and also serves a strategic goal of fastening leading positions in its East Coast focus cities. Use new Mint deliveries to bolster West Coast transcon flying. As long as AS continues to compete with a subpar premium product (not just to B6, but to the Big 3), B6 should be able to secure some HVC's from the West Coast.

I think the end game here is that B6 waits 7-8 years and then merges with AS. Two powerhouses on their respective coasts (absent an unforeseen event or other unplanned factors) - a match made in heaven....at least from an airline enthusiast's perspective : :lol:

As an airline enthusiast, I'd rather see both jetBlue and Alaska remain unmerged. For me, it's better to have two airlines that innovate in their own ways.
 
Beardown91737
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:33 am

nine4nine wrote:



How do you figure BUR does not have room for a larger B6 op? Before they got into LAX they had 4xJFK, 1xIAD, 1xFLL, and 1xMCO which I believe replace the IAD flight.

...
...
...

Now if you average 10 flights per gate at 14 gates
You get;


NIMBYs is what you will get.
135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24980
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:47 am

An update on this.

City Council and residents are now looking further at amendments to the noise ordinance to cut down on the number of curfew violations.
In 2016 the airport experienced 134 violations while the first 9 months had 222 air carrier curfew violations of which 209 belong to JetBlue.

Noise Ordinance Amendments On The Horizon As Late Night Flights Pile Up at LGB
https://lbpost.com/news/2000012043-nois ... -up-at-lgb

=

In addition LB mayor issued following statement this week.

Image
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
Vio
Posts: 1619
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:23 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:08 am

Here's a quick way of doing this:
- Fine the pilot! I bet you NO captain would risk that. So really, if you wanted to stop / reduce noise at night, it can be done. Fine the crews, suspend their licenses, etc (Just like a driver gets penalized for breaking the law. I say that as a pilot as well. If I'm in the left / right seat of that plane, there is no way I'd risk my license. Guess what? This eliminates noise, doing idiotic duty hours, etc.
Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6142
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:30 am

What pilot? Jetblue is the most delayed major airline in the US. They are knowingly dispatching the flights to LGB past curfew. Good luck to the pilot refusing to fly because of a curfew...JB dispatches a legal
flight and you’re a JB pilot, you are going.
 
isp2
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:28 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:42 am

I hear an announcement of reentry to the ONT market is imminent with JFK and BOS service. LGB will be reduced by approximately 30% (35 down to 25) with slots becoming available to other carriers. Although LGB is being cut, also look for service to a new - LGB only - BlueCity (BZM)
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 776
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:55 am

Yep as much as I enjoyed seeing LGB as a almost exclusive B6 airport, the time has come. The airline cant just keep subsidizing that operation. Grats SWA on their soon to be additional slots.
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 3310
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:04 am

isp2 wrote:
I hear an announcement of reentry to the ONT market is imminent with JFK and BOS service. LGB will be reduced by approximately 30% (35 down to 25) with slots becoming available to other carriers. Although LGB is being cut, also look for service to a new - LGB only - BlueCity (BZM)


If true, this would be some combination of scenarios speculated here on a.net. B6's operation at LGB has been an ever-evolving affair. Why not try something new yet again.

Re-entry to ONT is interesting. It's a different market than it was 10 years ago when B6 exited, and B6 has a different footprint in the LA area. It could work.

The addition of BZM was specifically speculated - and, if true, could be an interesting seasonal choice.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24980
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:02 pm

Couple more stories.

City considering raising fines up to $10,000 per violation, along with higher slot utilization rates to retain them as noise violations increased 79% in 2017 nearly all by JetBlue.

Airlines may pay stiffer penalties for late flights at Long Beach Airport
https://www.presstelegram.com/2018/01/1 ... h-airport/

Advisory Commission Gets Look At Airport Noise Ordinance Changes
http://www.gazettes.com/news/business/a ... d361d.html

=
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
fastmover
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:37 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:53 pm

Vio wrote:
Here's a quick way of doing this:
- Fine the pilot! I bet you NO captain would risk that. So really, if you wanted to stop / reduce noise at night, it can be done. Fine the crews, suspend their licenses, etc (Just like a driver gets penalized for breaking the law. I say that as a pilot as well. If I'm in the left / right seat of that plane, there is no way I'd risk my license. Guess what? This eliminates noise, doing idiotic duty hours, etc.



I don’t think I have ever seen a more uninformed post in my life.
 
carljanderson
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:29 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:59 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Couple more stories.

City considering raising fines up to $10,000 per violation, along with higher slot utilization rates to retain them as noise violations increased 79% in 2017 nearly all by JetBlue.

Airlines may pay stiffer penalties for late flights at Long Beach Airport
https://www.presstelegram.com/2018/01/1 ... h-airport/

Advisory Commission Gets Look At Airport Noise Ordinance Changes
http://www.gazettes.com/news/business/a ... d361d.html

=


Honest question, but what are the chances that these changes (especially the slot utilization) jeopardize the ANCA grandfather status that 16.43 currently enjoys, or at least triggers an examination by the FAA? I know in the slot agreement in 2003, the FAA was not evaluating 16.43 per se, but held option the review in the future. Would another airline request a FAA review of 16.43 after these changes?
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24980
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:09 pm

carljanderson wrote:

Honest question, but what are the chances that these changes (especially the slot utilization) jeopardize the ANCA grandfather status that 16.43 currently enjoys, or at least triggers an examination by the FAA? I know in the slot agreement in 2003, the FAA was not evaluating 16.43 per se, but held option the review in the future. Would another airline request a FAA review of 16.43 after these changes?


City claims it has letter from FAA stating proposed amendments are not a concern.

All the airport is looking to do from what I gather is raise existing fine level amount, and raise the existing slot usage percentage while the underlying historic ordinance remains. An update, not rewrite.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:12 pm

What is the new slot usage proposal?
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1622
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:17 pm

Don't know what B6 sees in LGB, I understand other area airports are congested and they are late to the party at LAX, but it is clear LGB and the NIMBY's don't want a large B6 presence at LGB. Unless they are prepared to pay fines upon fines they really should just close up shop at LGB for the most part (minus JFK and BOS) and split it up among LAX, BUR, and SNA.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
RIP US Airways
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24980
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:30 pm

janders wrote:
What is the new slot usage proposal?


Airline would have to maintain utilization rates of 60 percent per month, 70 percent per quarter and 85 percent per year.

Desire is to avoid slot squatting by airlines (B6 historically) flying the minimum number of flights to maintain hold on slots particularly now with Southwest knocking on the door with the desire to keep growing.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
tphuang
Posts: 5703
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:40 pm

JetBlue today has 35 flights scheduled, just as it does for most days. Which is why they are loosing huge amount of money. I don't see utilization as the issue. But if fines keep going up and they can't run a better operation, then that's probably the way out.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:23 pm

The most obvious solution but which won't generate anywhere near the same level of discussion as other options is simply for B6 to retime their LGB operation so they have fewer flights operating close to the curfew.


:checkmark:
 
tphuang
Posts: 5703
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:38 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
The most obvious solution but which won't generate anywhere near the same level of discussion as other options is simply for B6 to retime their LGB operation so they have fewer flights operating close to the curfew.


:checkmark:

They schedule it the current way I assume to get the best schedule from plane utilization and revenue perspective. And they are loosing massive amount of money Already. Do you suggest doing a suboptimal schedule which would loose more money? Certainly, if they cut down on their schedule and loose slots in the process, that should alleviate the problem some what.

Their more profitable flights are likely the transcon stuff that are also more likely to be late.
 
catiii
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:42 pm

mercure1 wrote:
One would imagine JetBlue would do all it can to earn good reputation and win the hearts and minds of citizens and politicians at LGB since they desire to allow international flights and maybe also gain additional slots one day, but instead, now they bring more negative attention to themselves with such large increase in curfew violations. Not very good PR.


Hot take. JetBlue came in, invested in the airport, created jobs, and stimulated demand. If anything it's LGB killing the goose that laid a golden egg.
 
User avatar
Vio
Posts: 1619
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:23 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:09 pm

fastmover wrote:
Vio wrote:
Here's a quick way of doing this:
- Fine the pilot! I bet you NO captain would risk that. So really, if you wanted to stop / reduce noise at night, it can be done. Fine the crews, suspend their licenses, etc (Just like a driver gets penalized for breaking the law. I say that as a pilot as well. If I'm in the left / right seat of that plane, there is no way I'd risk my license. Guess what? This eliminates noise, doing idiotic duty hours, etc.



I don’t think I have ever seen a more uninformed post in my life.


So let me get this straight. How is that uniformed? If a Truck driver or a Deliver Driver disobeys a traffic law, who gets the fine? The company or the driver? I think the same rules should apply to pilots.
I've had to land a few times past curfew because of weather delays. If this rule was in place and I knew that a $3,000 fine would await me, I'd have the best excuse to say "Nope, not gonna happen. I'm not doing this flight". So: A) I would not have been subjected to flying tired into my 14th hour and B) The residents didn't have to be disturbed at 2am.
Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
 
fastmover
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:37 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:47 pm

Vio wrote:
fastmover wrote:
Vio wrote:
Here's a quick way of doing this:
- Fine the pilot! I bet you NO captain would risk that. So really, if you wanted to stop / reduce noise at night, it can be done. Fine the crews, suspend their licenses, etc (Just like a driver gets penalized for breaking the law. I say that as a pilot as well. If I'm in the left / right seat of that plane, there is no way I'd risk my license. Guess what? This eliminates noise, doing idiotic duty hours, etc.



I don’t think I have ever seen a more uninformed post in my life.


So let me get this straight. How is that uniformed? If a Truck driver or a Deliver Driver disobeys a traffic law, who gets the fine? The company or the driver? I think the same rules should apply to pilots.
I've had to land a few times past curfew because of weather delays. If this rule was in place and I knew that a $3,000 fine would await me, I'd have the best excuse to say "Nope, not gonna happen. I'm not doing this flight". So: A) I would not have been subjected to flying tired into my 14th hour and B) The residents didn't have to be disturbed at 2am.



Well first running around taking a pilots license away so easily is ridiculous.
Now if you can tell me which Federal Aviation Regulations those pilots are busting you might have a point.
(It’s an airport noise ordinance not an FAR it’s not able to be used to take a pilots license away)
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1149
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:00 am

I think what is appalling here is JetBlue's willful disregard of the curfew and thumbing their nose at the community regardless of their willingness to pay the fines.
B6 certainly is not winning supporters in the community by so dramatically having increased their violation counts in 2017.
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
User avatar
tb727
Posts: 2254
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:11 am

WesternA318 wrote:
I say AA and DL fly in un-hushed 727's just for them, and in LGB give B6 some unhushed DC-9-50's...*evil grin*


I flew a hushkitted 727 in and out of there about 7 or 8 years ago with freight. Hit 116 decibels coming out of there on takeoff one day. We then started doing a bunch of late night/early morning stuff, I told management about the fines and they didn't care. Our GM thought it was only a $300 per occurrence until they got all the letters threatening to ban us from operating there and all of the big fines :lol: Before you knew it we were going to CNO to pick up the freight!
Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
 
airplaneboy
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:18 am

catiii wrote:
mercure1 wrote:
One would imagine JetBlue would do all it can to earn good reputation and win the hearts and minds of citizens and politicians at LGB since they desire to allow international flights and maybe also gain additional slots one day, but instead, now they bring more negative attention to themselves with such large increase in curfew violations. Not very good PR.


Hot take. JetBlue came in, invested in the airport, created jobs, and stimulated demand. If anything it's LGB killing the goose that laid a golden egg.


Market dynamics... JetBlue came to Long Beach at a time when few airlines had interest in serving the airport. During those years, there was also plenty of available terminal space at other LA area airports. By selecting LGB to be their primary west coast gateway, Jetblue benefited from having a larger presence and critical mass at one of 5 major LA area airports- which also helped boost its brand awareness in SoCal. It also helped them to keep other airlines from directly competing with them due to the limited available slots and gate space. Fast forward, and the travel slump that existed when B6 began flying from LGB no longer exists. A then very dominant intra-California Southwest, is more intra-California than ever before, and wants more slots at LGB. B6 is being fined for curfew violations like any other airline would be (just because they are the largest airline there doesn’t preclude them from abiding by the same laws). I don’t see how LGB is intentionally hurting JetBlue as you suggest. Both entities benefited from one another for years, but JetBlue didn’t generously give/do/sacrifice anything to “help” LGB. They benefited a lot from LGB as well, and from what others have mentioned in this thread it seems like JetBlue is having a difficult time operating profitably on select LGB routes at a time when other airlines are now showing interest in growing at LGB. If ain’t working, perhaps they’ll redeploy their resources where they will see a greater return. Unfortunately for JetBlue, they missed many opportunities to build a more significant west coast presence. Now perhaps they just need to focus on growing where they are strong: the northeast and Florida/Latin America.
 
joeycapps
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:24 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:42 am

I noticed a few people earlier in the thread talking about ONT. I've flown the ONT-JFK red eye and back since 2001, until they ceased all service to/from ONT. The loads at first were pretty solid, to the point that they added an additional daily service. Towards the tail end of their run at ONT, the load factors (APPEARED) to be under 60%, and that's from memory.... Circa 2007. The Inland Empire, which is what surrounds ONT, is potentially the most volatile economic market in Southern California. As soon as we dipped into the "great recession", we saw foreclosure rates skyrocket, and jobs cut. ONT is served by AA, UA and DL which offer ample connections out of SLC and DFW. WN holds the largest market share as far as I can tell, but that's neither here nor there, especially in the transcon market, where I'd have to make 2+ stops to get to NY. Would I like to see B6 back at ONT? Sure I would, it would make driving to LGB or LAX obsolete, saving me about 2 hours of drive time in the hellhole that is So Cal traffic... But I think ONT has to really prove a case in order to be get B6's attention. With Frontier starting service to a few destinations, there is hope that we will attract more service. Volaris picked a prime market with the hispanic communities in the Inland Empire, and overall we are seeing growth... But the B6 of today is different than the one I flew for the first time in August of 2001. I imagine that they're focusing on the trendier, dare I say it, wealthier Los Angeles market, and that would put ONT about 1.5 hours of the way. I remember going to ONT and seeing just about every US tail from Aloha to Northwest... But those days are gone. My only hope is that the recent buildup of industry is for the long haul, and that would give ONT a fighting chance. Until then, it's just me, the 60 freeway, and LAX unfortunately.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:05 am

They schedule it the current way I assume to get the best schedule from plane utilization and revenue perspective. And they are loosing massive amount of money Already. Do you suggest doing a suboptimal schedule which would loose more money? Certainly, if they cut down on their schedule and loose slots in the process, that should alleviate the problem some what.


Being fined for regularly having late arriving flights is clearly already suboptimal. JetBlue has been aware of this issue for awhile, now, and it hasn't gone away. So, they can either suck it up, pay the fines and not complain, or they can reschedule to avoid the fines. It's a simple business decision - will you make more money with the fines, or without?
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4993
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:00 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:

Being fined for regularly having late arriving flights is clearly already suboptimal. JetBlue has been aware of this issue for awhile, now, and it hasn't gone away. So, they can either suck it up, pay the fines and not complain, or they can reschedule to avoid the fines. It's a simple business decision - will you make more money with the fines, or without?


Seems like terrible decision to willingly operate late and absorb fines while totally ignoring local rules and disturbing a town.

No wonder why many hate the corporate world when one has such terrible example of corporate ignorance in pursuit of money regardless of the consequences and effects on communities.

In my opinion, the company needs to learn how to live and operate within the airport rules and make good with the city. Not so purposely violate long-established rules.
mercure f-wtcc
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1622
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:03 pm

mercure1 wrote:
Aptivaboy wrote:

Being fined for regularly having late arriving flights is clearly already suboptimal. JetBlue has been aware of this issue for awhile, now, and it hasn't gone away. So, they can either suck it up, pay the fines and not complain, or they can reschedule to avoid the fines. It's a simple business decision - will you make more money with the fines, or without?


Seems like terrible decision to willingly operate late and absorb fines while totally ignoring local rules and disturbing a town.

No wonder why many hate the corporate world when one has such terrible example of corporate ignorance in pursuit of money regardless of the consequences and effects on communities.

In my opinion, the company needs to learn how to live and operate within the airport rules and make good with the city. Not so purposely violate long-established rules.


Nope, more like the government screwing people over. 2 or 3 people complain because an airplane at 10,000 feet is "hurting their ears", complain to the government, government punishes/fines/puts more rules in place for said airline, airline decides no more and pulls out, people now travelling further away to go to new airport/businesses, businesses near airport close down/decrease business.

Economics 101. You decided to live near an airport, YOU get to live with the consequences.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
RIP US Airways
 
tphuang
Posts: 5703
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: LGB doubles fines on JetBlue's late-night flight violations

Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:24 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:

Being fined for regularly having late arriving flights is clearly already suboptimal. JetBlue has been aware of this issue for awhile, now, and it hasn't gone away. So, they can either suck it up, pay the fines and not complain, or they can reschedule to avoid the fines. It's a simple business decision - will you make more money with the fines, or without?


And guess what, if they change their schedule, they would loose even more money. They obviously don't think they'd be late this often, but it is what it is.

mercure1 wrote:
Seems like terrible decision to willingly operate late and absorb fines while totally ignoring local rules and disturbing a town.

No wonder why many hate the corporate world when one has such terrible example of corporate ignorance in pursuit of money regardless of the consequences and effects on communities.

In my opinion, the company needs to learn how to live and operate within the airport rules and make good with the city. Not so purposely violate long-established rules.


Except that JetBlue has done a lot for this airport. Transforming it from a place where few carriers want to use to one where other carriers are also waiting for slots. They have also done a lot of charity work in the community. And all they get for it is a bunch of NIMBYs torpedoing their effort to do international flights by claiming that somehow flying to Mexico or Canada would be more noisy than flying to Austin or New York.

Don't worry, Jetblue will be gone before long. And these transcon flights and flights to SEA/PDX/AUS/RNO will be long gone too. WN will raise their fares to ONT/BUR level and LGB will get their 30 daily flights to LAS/OAK/SJC/SMF. For anything more than an hour flight away, Long beach residents can do the 1.5 hour drive in traffic hour to LAX and deal with that madness.

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