In a move to establish its own identity, the Ontario International Airport will launch a marketing campaign in the fall aimed at attracting travelers.


As part of the move, the airport this week unveiled a two logos and three marketing tag lines.of:

o “So Cal. So Easy.”
o ‘Easy come. Easy go.’
o ‘Where the flying is easy.’






=

Per the airport authority, it seeks to market the airport as “Southern California’s preferred alternate airport.”

Personally, I think they made a fatal mistake of not including a reference to either Los Angeles or Southern California in the branding. This is the opposite path Burbank recently took which discovered many outside of SoCal had no clue where to the airport was and decided to incorporate "Hollywood" into the airports updated branding.

Oh dear... and that 'plane' integrated into the logo? No comment.

LAXintl wrote:

Personally, I think they made a fatal mistake of not including a reference to either Los Angeles or Southern California in the branding. This is the opposite path Burbank recently took which discovered many outside of SoCal had no clue where to the airport was and decided to incorporate "Hollywood" into the airports updated branding.

Agreed.

While I agree with your commentary, at some point the airport authority has to accept that they're stuck trying to put lipstick on a pig. As a former Angeleno, I can't see ONT ever becoming a viable alternative for leisure travelers heading to SoCal tourist attractions due to its distance and commute time in traffic. I think they would be better off marketing to local folks in San Bernardino, Riverside, and along the I-15 corridor to consider ONT as an alternative to LAX, SNA, or SAN.

What is Ontario? Some place in Canada??

I doubt many even in the United States have clue where the airport is.

Like many secondary airports, they should play on the name of their mega city neighbor - Los Angeles.

Let the global awareness of Los Angeles help with free advertising, instead of trying to market an unknown and nondescript Ontario brand from scratch. Epic fail.

LAXintl wrote:

Per the airport authority, it seeks to market the airport as “Southern California’s preferred alternate airport.”

That's fine, but I hope that phase isn't in marketing directed at the flying public. Blech.

mercure1 wrote:

What is Ontario? Some place in Canada??

I doubt many even in the United States have clue where the airport is.

Like many secondary airports, they should play on the name of their mega city neighbor - Los Angeles.

Let the global awareness of Los Angeles help with free advertising, instead of trying to market an unknown and nondescript Ontario brand from scratch. Epic fail.

That can't do that because that is what LAWA did - LA/Ontario International.

That would be implicit admission that LAWA actually knew what they were doing...

I am sure the hard feelings with LAWA likely make the use of Los Angeles in the branding bitter pill to swallow, but even the Ontario Convention & Visitors Bureau adds California in their branding.



As I stated prior, at the very least the airport should have made mention of California, or Southern California in its branding if Los Angeles was too allergic for them.
The fact is Ontario is hardly a city average Americans have heard of and those in the Eastern US probably would think of Ontario Canada if anything.

Didn't BWI Airport use something like Easy Come, Easy Go before?

"Southern California International" would have been better. To 95+% of North Americans, "Ontario" means the Province of Canada. I have no data to support my percentage, just my experience in marketing, brand recognition, and trademark strategy. You never fight an entrenched, indelible brand. Even Ontario CA is ambiguous. The denizens of that California city should consider renaming the city... something like, "Chicago, Californa", or "Boston, California" [/humor]... but those examples illustrate the problem.

spokemd wrote:

Didn't BWI Airport use something like Easy Come, Easy Go before?

http://www.marylandaviation.com/_media/ ... 15-002.pdf
You can see it in the MWAA side panel on this document.
Also: https://www.signatureflight.com/locations/bwi
" BWI is known as the "easy-come, easy-go" airport, with easy access to major highways and rail systems that will make your travel experience seamless."

LAXintl wrote:

Personally, I think they made a fatal mistake of not including a reference to either Los Angeles or Southern California in the branding. This is the opposite path Burbank recently took which discovered many outside of SoCal had no clue where to the airport was and decided to incorporate "Hollywood" into the airports updated branding.

Fatal mistake, being a little over dramatic are we? The LA/Ontario name, officially, is not that old. It had been known as Ontario International Airport for much longer, even during the peak years up to 2007. Passenger count is up nearly 7% over this time last year and I'll just bet not all of them are flying in to ONT because it had been called LA/Ontario Airport. Look I get that you're an LAX "homer" but this hatred you have towards ONT is absolutely ridiculous. ONT is never going to compete with LAX and never has, however if ONT sees an increase in passenger count that is hardly going to put a dent in to LAX. I've grown up spending my time at ONT since 1984 when my dad started working there and I've worked there since 1998, the past three years as an air traffic controller so I'm biased. I'm also a realist and know that ONT won't be much larger, passenger wise, than it was during the peak years 2005-2007 but LAX can only grow so much, they have NO extra land they can build on and only so many airplanes can be on the ground at once.

And here I thought we were talking about Canada.

They really need Cali in the name and marketing.

Even the marketing colors scream "cold" and make you think Canada, not Cali

If Ontario wants to be the region's alternative airport, what does it mean?

It means being an alternative for Los Angeles, so it's critical it plays up the name Los Angeles which is the whole point.

Ontario means zero to most outsiders, while Los Angeles is know by the entire planet.

WPvsMW wrote:

"Southern California International" would have been better. To 95+% of North Americans, "Ontario" means the Province of Canada. I have no data to support my percentage, just my experience in marketing, brand recognition, and trademark strategy. You never fight an entrenched, indelible brand. Even Ontario CA is ambiguous. The denizens of that California city should consider renaming the city... something like, "Chicago, Californa", or "Boston, California" [/humor]... but those examples illustrate the problem.

No, I suspect that most Americans couldn't find Canada on a map, let alone the Province of Ontario.

I never understood why the LA area airports never branded themselves similar to the likes of New York -JFK, New York -La Guardia. If La Guardia marketed themselves as just that I'm sure a nice chunk of the country wouldn't even know where that was.

"Southern California International Airport - Ontario" would be great.

LAXintl wrote:

In a move to establish its own identity, the Ontario International Airport will launch a marketing campaign in the fall aimed at attracting travelers.


As part of the move, the airport this week unveiled a two logos and three marketing tag lines.of:

o “So Cal. So Easy.”
o ‘Easy come. Easy go.’
o ‘Where the flying is easy.’






=

Per the airport authority, it seeks to market the airport as “Southern California’s preferred alternate airport.”

Personally, I think they made a fatal mistake of not including a reference to either Los Angeles or Southern California in the branding. This is the opposite path Burbank recently took which discovered many outside of SoCal had no clue where to the airport was and decided to incorporate "Hollywood" into the airports updated branding.

They made a fatal mistake by putting the airport in Ontario

Most people flying into LA want to go west or north or LA so you'll wind up driving past LAX, LBG, SNA, and BUR on your way to your final destination.

FX1816 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Personally, I think they made a fatal mistake of not including a reference to either Los Angeles or Southern California in the branding. This is the opposite path Burbank recently took which discovered many outside of SoCal had no clue where to the airport was and decided to incorporate "Hollywood" into the airports updated branding.

Fatal mistake, being a little over dramatic are we? The LA/Ontario name, officially, is not that old. It had been known as Ontario International Airport for much longer, even during the peak years up to 2007. Passenger count is up nearly 7% over this time last year and I'll just bet not all of them are flying in to ONT because it had been called LA/Ontario Airport. Look I get that you're an LAX "homer" but this hatred you have towards ONT is absolutely ridiculous. ONT is never going to compete with LAX and never has, however if ONT sees an increase in passenger count that is hardly going to put a dent in to LAX. I've grown up spending my time at ONT since 1984 when my dad started working there and I've worked there since 1998, the past three years as an air traffic controller so I'm biased. I'm also a realist and know that ONT won't be much larger, passenger wise, than it was during the peak years 2005-2007 but LAX can only grow so much, they have NO extra land they can build on and only so many airplanes can be on the ground at once.

Well said.

The market of Los Angeles is not in Ontario. The market of Ontario is not in Los Angeles. Apples to oranges. People who use ONT do so mainly to get to the Inland Empire, the Victorville surrounding area, east toward Palm Springs, and even south toward Temecula. The people who use LAX do so to get to the business center of LAX, the beaches, and and to a lesser extent, the San Fernando valley and Orange County. Even the culture of Los Angeles proper is different than the culture of the Inland Empire. So no, there is not a "fatal mistake" in not including LA into the Ontario name. It's been done before, and didn't really do much in the last years of LAWA's running of the airport in terms of passenger count is concerned.

For you nay-Sayers let me REMIND you that OAK and SJC were once like ONT and you should see them now with scores of international flights as people love the alternative to SFO

Comparison to OAK is hardly applicable. OAK is actually very convenient to reach San Francisco from, Its essentially no harder than from SFO itself. Also OAK and Eastbay has its own thriving economy, the same as Southbay and SJC region.

ONT, on the other hand, is both distant from where people want to go in Los Angeles, and where the money in Los Angeles is.

ONT is the classic secondary alternative airport in a metro region, and if it wants to succeed, it should play that up to let people know it can be considered part of Los Angeles for travelers.

n471wn wrote:

For you nay-Sayers let me REMIND you that OAK and SJC were once like ONT and you should see them now with scores of international flights as people love the alternative to SFO

Apples and Oranges...

SJC is close to the much of the Bay Area's wealth and tech corporations.
OAK has extensive LCC operations and public transit to SF.
Both of the are much closer to balance of the Bay Area's population.

ONT has nothing around it except alot of middle and low-income people that moved from LA because it was too expensive (and meth).
If ONT was in NorCal it would be the equivalent of Stockton SCK not OAK or SJC...

jonair8 wrote:

The market of Los Angeles is not in Ontario. The market of Ontario is not in Los Angeles. Apples to oranges. People who use ONT do so mainly to get to the Inland Empire, the Victorville surrounding area, east toward Palm Springs, and even south toward Temecula. The people who use LAX do so to get to the business center of LAX, the beaches, and and to a lesser extent, the San Fernando valley and Orange County. Even the culture of Los Angeles proper is different than the culture of the Inland Empire. So no, there is not a "fatal mistake" in not including LA into the Ontario name. It's been done before, and didn't really do much in the last years of LAWA's running of the airport in terms of passenger count is concerned.

Add to that market the people of eastern LA and north Orange counties. These are the people that don't want to cross the LA basin to get to LAX. For them a flight out of ONT would be the better choice if frequency and price were close. I've lived in this area for the past 46 years and have flown out of LAX, ONT, & LGB and would much rather go to ONT than the other 2.

Seabear wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

"Southern California International" would have been better. To 95+% of North Americans, "Ontario" means the Province of Canada. I have no data to support my percentage, just my experience in marketing, brand recognition, and trademark strategy. You never fight an entrenched, indelible brand. Even Ontario CA is ambiguous. The denizens of that California city should consider renaming the city... something like, "Chicago, Californa", or "Boston, California" [/humor]... but those examples illustrate the problem.

No, I suspect that most Americans couldn't find Canada on a map, let alone the Province of Ontario.

I'd go as far to say that most American's can't find their own state on a map. Unless it's a major city, people seem to draw a blank. My own sister in law was shocked to learn the greater Los Angeles area has more than one airport. After complaining about expensive flights into LAX and having to deal with a 1+ hour drive to her destination, I asked why she didn't fly into John Wayne Airport. She was pissed at first because she thought I was messing with her. Why would an airport be named for a movie cowboy? After pulling up Google Maps and a Los Angeles area sectional, she was shocked to learn how many commercial options were available. For years she could have flow into SNA, ONT, BUR, LGB and bypassed the traffic mess in, out, and around LAX. We ended the conversation with her saying, "They should just put Los Angeles in the name for people like me who smoked too much dope and cut too many classes back in high school." At least she is honest.

And what is SBD to become given general overlapping area? Or will SBD never result in much? I liked ONT the couple times I used it given I'm from OC and SNA is my home airport...and of course the fares are cheaper but less options across the country. The traffic getting out to ONT from LA/OC is horrific

They really should've included an LA refrence, but otherwise it isn't bad.

AAlaxfan wrote:

Add to that market the people of eastern LA and north Orange counties. These are the people that don't want to cross the LA basin to get to LAX. For them a flight out of ONT would be the better choice if frequency and price were close. I've lived in this area for the past 46 years and have flown out of LAX, ONT, & LGB and would much rather go to ONT than the other 2.

That's quite a generalization. At least from the western part of North OC, there are more freeways to and from LAX than to and from ONT.

I liked ONT back in the old terminal days. Walking up rear stairs of a PSA 727 was great.
And chances are they are not marketing themselves to everyone in America, so it doesn't really matter if Joe Blow in Syracuse doesn't know where it is. Marketing is done for the local folks. Have you seen any Hollywood/Burbank Airport ads anywhere other than SoCal?
I believe the Ontario Airport folks are happy to concentrate their ads to local ( East of LA) area. Later they can address the rest of the traveling world.
"Flying to Southern California? D'ONT use LAX, use ONTario!"

ldvaviation wrote:

AAlaxfan wrote:

Add to that market the people of eastern LA and north Orange counties. These are the people that don't want to cross the LA basin to get to LAX. For them a flight out of ONT would be the better choice if frequency and price were close. I've lived in this area for the past 46 years and have flown out of LAX, ONT, & LGB and would much rather go to ONT than the other 2.

That's quite a generalization. At least from the western part of North OC, there are more freeways to and from LAX than to and from ONT.

I concur. My uncle lives in Yorba Linda and his order of preference is SNA, LGB, LAX, then ONT. He says the traffic is just as bad to ONT as LAX but least LAX has a wider variety of flights and usually the cheapest.

UALFAson wrote:

While I agree with your commentary, at some point the airport authority has to accept that they're stuck trying to put lipstick on a pig. As a former Angeleno, I can't see ONT ever becoming a viable alternative for leisure travelers heading tino SoCal tourist attractions due to its distance and commute time in traffic. I think they would be better off marketing to local folks in San Bernardino, Riverside, and along the I-15 corridor to consider ONT as an alternative to LAX, SNA, or SAN.

I agree and also to the SGV and North OC as the airport is closer and much more convenient to those areas. The airport did great for many years and only failed under severe mismanagement. Look forward to more flight options so the millions of people closer to ONT don't have to trek to LAX. Me included.

usflyer msp wrote:

n471wn wrote:

For you nay-Sayers let me REMIND you that OAK and SJC were once like ONT and you should see them now with scores of international flights as people love the alternative to SFO

Apples and Oranges...

SJC is close to the much of the Bay Area's wealth and tech corporations.
OAK has extensive LCC operations and public transit to SF.
Both of the are much closer to balance of the Bay Area's population.

ONT has nothing around it except alot of middle and low-income people that moved from LA because it was too expensive (and meth).
If ONT was in NorCal it would be the equivalent of Stockton SCK not OAK or SJC...

Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.

BGS91762 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

n471wn wrote:

For you nay-Sayers let me REMIND you that OAK and SJC were once like ONT and you should see them now with scores of international flights as people love the alternative to SFO

Apples and Oranges...

SJC is close to the much of the Bay Area's wealth and tech corporations.
OAK has extensive LCC operations and public transit to SF.
Both of the are much closer to balance of the Bay Area's population.

ONT has nothing around it except alot of middle and low-income people that moved from LA because it was too expensive (and meth).
If ONT was in NorCal it would be the equivalent of Stockton SCK not OAK or SJC...

Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.

But you still haven't explained why anyone in LA would land further from their destination when they don't have to. LAX has some of the cheapest fair in the country.

32andBelow wrote:

BGS91762 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

Apples and Oranges...

SJC is close to the much of the Bay Area's wealth and tech corporations.
OAK has extensive LCC operations and public transit to SF.
Both of the are much closer to balance of the Bay Area's population.

ONT has nothing around it except alot of middle and low-income people that moved from LA because it was too expensive (and meth).
If ONT was in NorCal it would be the equivalent of Stockton SCK not OAK or SJC...

Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.

But you still haven't explained why anyone in LA would land further from their destination when they don't have to. LAX has some of the cheapest fair in the country.

Not sure why this is so hard to explain. I agree if you are going to the main tourist areas of LA then LAX is a great choice. But for millions of people in So Cal Ontario is closer and more convenient. ONT will never be an LAX, as there are very few airports in the world that can compete with the variety of airlines and flight. However, it can be a great airport for the eastern part of LA and the I.E. and should do fine with all the growth occurring to the east of LA.

BGS91762 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

BGS91762 wrote:

Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.

But you still haven't explained why anyone in LA would land further from their destination when they don't have to. LAX has some of the cheapest fair in the country.

Not sure why this is so hard to explain. I agree if you are going to the main tourist areas of LA then LAX is a great choice. But for millions of people in So Cal Ontario is closer and more convenient. ONT will never be an LAX, as there are very few airports in the world that can compete with the variety of airlines and flight. However, it can be a great airport for the eastern part of LA and the I.E. and should do fine with all the growth occurring to the east of LA.

The local IE traffic is what ONT is currently getting. ONT fans keep longing for the early 2000's glory days of ONT but refuse to acknowledge that much of that growth was driven by residents from outside of it's natural catchment area travelling from ONT because of unsustainably low airfares which are not coming back...

n471wn wrote:

For you nay-Sayers let me REMIND you that OAK and SJC were once like ONT and you should see them now with scores of international flights as people love the alternative to SFO

This is a good point, actually.

It was a fatal mistake for ONT to officially market itself as an airport serving Los Angeles. ONT is about 38 miles/61 km from downtown LA - an even greater distance than that between NRT and downtown Tokyo. However, downtown LA itself is still very much an up-and-coming place; virtually all of the city's businesses, tourist attractions and wealthy inhabitants are located even farther away from ONT. Given the relatively poor public transit options available and wildly unpredictable traffic patterns of Greater Los Angeles, the 40-50 mile journey to/from ONT could take hours. I'm very glad to see this wonderful airport ditching the outrageous Ryanair-esque moniker in favor of one that emphasizes its primary advantage vs. LAX: ease of use.

BGS91762 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

n471wn wrote:

For you nay-Sayers let me REMIND you that OAK and SJC were once like ONT and you should see them now with scores of international flights as people love the alternative to SFO

Apples and Oranges...

SJC is close to the much of the Bay Area's wealth and tech corporations.
OAK has extensive LCC operations and public transit to SF.
Both of the are much closer to balance of the Bay Area's population.

ONT has nothing around it except alot of middle and low-income people that moved from LA because it was too expensive (and meth).
If ONT was in NorCal it would be the equivalent of Stockton SCK not OAK or SJC...

Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.

Not really. Stockton maybe slight farther but the demographics are pretty similar....

As a regular ONT flyer it's the easiest airport to deal with from a parking stand point and once inside the terminal. No long lines for check-in and security and with TSA pre-check you can often be through security in a minute or two. As an IE resident I hate having to go to LAX and only do that for international flights.

I also understand that ONT will never compete with LAX and never match it for number of flights and destinations but I also don't think anyone in the airport management think that either. Of course they want to increase passenger numbers but not to LAX levels.

It's worth pointing out that transportation to the area from other local regions is getting better, we now have fast track on the 91 from OC to the 15 and this will be extended on the 15N all the way to the 60 (a contract has been issued already). Once that is done San Bernardino county has plans to extend it from the 60 north in to the desert. These are not quick projects but it can only help the local traffic and yes these are toll lanes but priced correctly they can ease traffic on all lanes.

Back to the branding, I wonder if the lack of California in it indicates that they are mainly advertising to SoCal folks to make ONT their airport rather than visitors to the region?

usflyer msp wrote:

BGS91762 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

But you still haven't explained why anyone in LA would land further from their destination when they don't have to. LAX has some of the cheapest fair in the country.

Not sure why this is so hard to explain. I agree if you are going to the main tourist areas of LA then LAX is a great choice. But for millions of people in So Cal Ontario is closer and more convenient. ONT will never be an LAX, as there are very few airports in the world that can compete with the variety of airlines and flight. However, it can be a great airport for the eastern part of LA and the I.E. and should do fine with all the growth occurring to the east of LA.

The local IE traffic is what ONT is currently getting. ONT fans keep longing for the early 2000's glory days of ONT but refuse to acknowledge that much of that growth was driven by residents from outside of it's natural catchment area travelling from ONT because of unsustainably low airfares which are not coming back...

After the 2008 downturn SWA moved many of its flights to LAX. ONT is a shell of its former schedule

[code][/code]

dc10lover wrote:

n471wn wrote:

For you nay-Sayers let me REMIND you that OAK and SJC were once like ONT and you should see them now with scores of international flights as people love the alternative to SFO

This is a good point, actually.

True but the city of OAK and the San Jose are in different leagues (size, and known cities) then the city of Ontario. OAK SJC major cities ONT not so.

usflyer msp wrote:

BGS91762 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

Apples and Oranges...

SJC is close to the much of the Bay Area's wealth and tech corporations.
OAK has extensive LCC operations and public transit to SF.
Both of the are much closer to balance of the Bay Area's population.

ONT has nothing around it except alot of middle and low-income people that moved from LA because it was too expensive (and meth).
If ONT was in NorCal it would be the equivalent of Stockton SCK not OAK or SJC...

Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.

Not really. Stockton maybe slight farther but the demographics are pretty similar....

Demographics are not even close. I've worked in Stockton. Also not so densely populated as the IE, East LA County areas.

32andBelow wrote:

BGS91762 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

Apples and Oranges...

SJC is close to the much of the Bay Area's wealth and tech corporations.
OAK has extensive LCC operations and public transit to SF.
Both of the are much closer to balance of the Bay Area's population.

ONT has nothing around it except alot of middle and low-income people that moved from LA because it was too expensive (and meth).
If ONT was in NorCal it would be the equivalent of Stockton SCK not OAK or SJC...

Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.

But you still haven't explained why anyone in LA would land further from their destination when they don't have to. LAX has some of the cheapest fair in the country.

the Fare have flip flopped for local flying. LAX use to be more then ONT / BUR and LAX and SNA were higher for most flights. SWA got more gate space at LAX and expanded all over the country so they run a lot small operation at ONT. Now the fares are higher then LAX and SNA.

UALFAson wrote:

While I agree with your commentary, at some point the airport authority has to accept that they're stuck trying to put lipstick on a pig. As a former Angeleno, I can't see ONT ever becoming a viable alternative for leisure travelers heading to SoCal tourist attractions due to its distance and commute time in traffic. I think they would be better off marketing to local folks in San Bernardino, Riverside, and along the I-15 corridor to consider ONT as an alternative to LAX, SNA, or SAN.

That's a good point that never crossed my mind. When I fly into LAX it makes sense why some people wouldn't associate ONT with the So Cal area, I can follow the traffic jams from ONT straight into LAX from the plane window depending on what time I arrive.

BGS91762 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

BGS91762 wrote:

Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.

Not really. Stockton maybe slight farther but the demographics are pretty similar....

Demographics are not even close. I've worked in Stockton. Also not so densely populated as the IE, East LA County areas.

Fewer people - yes.
Very similar types of people however.

a) lower income people in service industry jobs
b) middle income people priced out owning in closer in areas. They spend an absurd percentage of their income on housing and transportation - not much left for leisure travel. They don't travel for work.

usflyer msp wrote:

BGS91762 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

Not really. Stockton maybe slight farther but the demographics are pretty similar....

Demographics are not even close. I've worked in Stockton. Also not so densely populated as the IE, East LA County areas.

Fewer people - yes.
Very similar types of people however.

a) lower income people in service industry jobs
b) middle income people priced out owning in closer in areas. They spend an absurd percentage of their income on housing and transportation - not much left for leisure travel. They don't travel for work.

Where in the I.E. do you live? Because your perspective is very different from me who has lived in the western I.E. for 30 years. I agree on your perspective if you were talking the San Bernardino or Victorville areas. Most of my neighbors including myself are professionals with several who travel regularly. Some work in LA but live in my neighborhood and love the convenience of ONT.

ONT is mostly concerned with being able to serve the local catchment area and drive an economic engine for the region. No one is trying to make anyone from Los Angeles drive to ONT to catch a plane. We just want to have our nice convenient airport and not bother with a drive to west BFE. We want our incoming travelers to have a nearby place to arrive, go to the business they need to go to, and stay in our hotels, etc, so they can miss the mess at LAX.

The OIAA will do some marketing campaigns to raise awareness for incoming passengers. I am sure that the "SoCal So easy" will be the marketing message outside of SoCal. It makes it an easier choice for travelers who have destinations further east.

32andBelow wrote:

Most people flying into LA want to go west or north or LA so you'll wind up driving past LAX, LBG, SNA, and BUR on your way to your final destination.

You would not drive past any of these. SNA is to the south, LGB is southwest and almost on the coast. LAX is in west BFE with nothing to the west but water, so you cannot drive past it unless your car floats. BUR maybe, but if that is where you are going, just book your trip to BUR.

Ok, how did the other airports become popular? BUR, SNA LNB

What is Ontario? Some place in Canada??

I doubt many even in the United States have clue where the airport is.

Like many secondary airports, they should play on the name of their mega city neighbor - Los Angeles.

I agree. I think more variety in airport choice outside of LAX would be good for the area in general, and this kind of campaign is not helping...

she was shocked to learn how many commercial options were available. For years she could have flow into SNA, ONT, BUR, LGB and bypassed the traffic mess in, out, and around LAX

She is not alone, but rather part of the majority I would say. Unless you live in the LA area or have been there frequently, there is a general lack of awareness on alternate airports. And of course outside the US, that awareness is zero.

mtnwest1979 wrote:

I liked ONT back in the old terminal days. Walking up rear stairs of a PSA 727 was great.
And chances are they are not marketing themselves to everyone in America, so it doesn't really matter if Joe Blow in Syracuse doesn't know where it is. Marketing is done for the local folks. Have you seen any Hollywood/Burbank Airport ads anywhere other than SoCal?
I believe the Ontario Airport folks are happy to concentrate their ads to local ( East of LA) area. Later they can address the rest of the traveling world.
"Flying to Southern California? D'ONT use LAX, use ONTario!"

Yes I have in Phoenix & online ads.