Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: When Will B6 Pull Out of LGB?

Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:07 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
BUR-JFK could be MINT if the Runway was longer. That flight really seems to do well. They don't need frequency it is the times a small subset wants , a real small hit. I doubt that is in any risk with the pendibg LA announcement unless they really want to consolidate operations and leave BUR.

I hope if the announcent is lgb related that they just trim some loosers. LGB is such a spectacular airport but Southwest will be happy to come in and take their slots.

The interesting thing will be for Delta they always every slot lottery want more for LGB-SLC what if B6 reduces that market or slots are available will they want to keep flying? They serve lax and SNA already its more of a retaliation to B6 route. B6s announcement I bet delta will be watching closely also.


WN is in the enviable position of being “the enemy of my enemy”. If you are AS and are divesting something of value, who would you rather sell it to, WN or B6? If you are B6 and are divesting something of value, who would you rather sell it to, WN or AS? If you are AS or B6 and are divesting something of value, who would you rather sell it to, WN or DL?

WN has a different product and focus than the legacies, and of course won’t be playing in the same sandbox (I.e. Mint, F class, regionals, code shares, small towns, onboard service enhancements etc). They are the 800lb gorilla but at least it’s a gorilla that spends most of its time living under a different tree.

Keeps things interesting.
-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.
 
phllax
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:53 am

Re: When Will B6 Pull Out of LGB?

Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:29 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
BUR-JFK could be MINT if the Runway was longer. That flight really seems to do well. They don't need frequency it is the times a small subset wants , a real small hit. I doubt that is in any risk with the pendibg LA announcement unless they really want to consolidate operations and leave BUR.


Besides runway length, the 321 would be a challenge due to temperature & altitude (hot and high compared to SNA, DCA and LGA, all with short runways, but closer to or at MSL) and engine out minimum climb obstructions (the hills on 3 sides) that need to be met. Plus there's nowhere convenient to park a 321 right now unless there is a gate shuffle, which is rumored, and then only B4 & B5 can park it. Even now, the 320 has to stop for fuel when RWY 33 is used, which has been more than usual of late. If RWY 26 is the only usable runway for departures, which is very rare but again has been the case lately, then forget about it.

Honestly, I'd be glad with just a daylight flight to NY.
 
nine4nine
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: When Will B6 Pull Out of LGB?

Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:11 pm

With the new announcement of bookable flights and code sharing with jetSuiteX which has a hub in BUR I wouldn’t be surprised to see a big add there for feed.
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
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: When Will B6 Pull Out of LGB?

Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:34 pm

nine4nine wrote:
With the new announcement of bookable flights and code sharing with jetSuiteX which has a hub in BUR I wouldn’t be surprised to see a big add there for feed.


While I’d find that cool, I’m not sure how much feed really comes out of that agreement? If the brass is coming out west, it’d seem like JetSuiteX might be part of it but I’m guessing not the main part.

I am interested in seeing how the link with JetSuiteX evolves though.
-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.
 
mrpippy
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:25 pm

Re: When Will B6 Pull Out of LGB?

Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:11 pm

On the subject of fines at LGB: JBU943, FLL-LGB (scheduled to arrive at 9:32PM) has landed after 11PM 6 times during April, 3 of those after midnight. Whatever the city was hoping to achieve with the higher fines is clearly not working.
 
User avatar
WALmsp
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: When Will B6 Pull Out of LGB?

Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:11 am

wnflyguy wrote:
JBOC wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
Unfortunately the Airbus A320 isn't the right aircraft when it comes to SNA short Runway performance!

Flyguy



Aw man!
I know I've departed on a UA A320 from SNA...albeit, to Denver, with less fuel (and maybe less seats).
And B6 makes the A320 work at Burbank, where the runway is only about a 1000 feet longer. LGA too (very short runway there)!

Maybe B6 can block off a few rows and offer Even More Even More Even More Space and still make $$ to/from JFK!


That extra 1000 feet and non engine cut back that SNA requires for noise abatement makes all the difference.

BUR-JFK is one market Mint would be successful from if there wasn't any restrictions getting a A321 out of the airport. That's literally The Who's Who's of Hollywood hipster crowd Red eye!

Flyguy


The extra 1000 feet is obvious in limiting transcons. How does the cut back affect it?
In memory of my Dad, Robert "Bob" Fenrich, WAL 1964-1979, MSP ONT LAX
 
nine4nine
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: When Will B6 Pull Out of LGB?

Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:41 am

**2nd frequency BUR-JFK
Flt#2358 Dep 11:41 Arr 20:05

**New-BUR-BOS
FLT#2338 Dep 20:08 Arr 04:40

**New-ONT-JFK
FLT#354 Dep 23:59 Arr 08:24


Rumors of LGB reduction and elimination of most west coast-West coast markets. I’m not seeing it. seeing 34 daily total some modest increases in some markets.

LGB to:
OAK 4x
SMF 2x
LAS 5x
JFK 2x
BOS 2x
FLL 1x
SLC 4x
SJC 4x
SFO 5x
SEA 2x
PDX 2x
AUS 1x
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
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 5566
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: When Will B6 Pull Out of LGB?

Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:50 am

nine4nine wrote:
**2nd frequency BUR-JFK
Flt#2358 Dep 11:41 Arr 20:05

**New-BUR-BOS
FLT#2338 Dep 20:08 Arr 04:40

**New-ONT-JFK
FLT#354 Dep 23:59 Arr 08:24


Rumors of LGB reduction and elimination of most west coast-West coast markets. I’m not seeing it. seeing 34 daily total some modest increases in some markets.

LGB to:
OAK 4x
SMF 2x
LAS 5x
JFK 2x
BOS 2x
FLL 1x
SLC 4x
SJC 4x
SFO 5x
SEA 2x
PDX 2x
AUS 1x


Are you pulling this from somewhere?
ORD & IND

AA & DL
 
FX1816
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:02 am

Re: When Will B6 Pull Out of LGB?

Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:59 am

Midwestindy wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
**2nd frequency BUR-JFK
Flt#2358 Dep 11:41 Arr 20:05

**New-BUR-BOS
FLT#2338 Dep 20:08 Arr 04:40

**New-ONT-JFK
FLT#354 Dep 23:59 Arr 08:24


Rumors of LGB reduction and elimination of most west coast-West coast markets. I’m not seeing it. seeing 34 daily total some modest increases in some markets.

LGB to:
OAK 4x
SMF 2x
LAS 5x
JFK 2x
BOS 2x
FLL 1x
SLC 4x
SJC 4x
SFO 5x
SEA 2x
PDX 2x
AUS 1x


Are you pulling this from somewhere?


ONT route comes up if you try to book it on their site.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5732
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: When Will B6 Pull Out of LGB?

Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:58 am

Now that B6 has cut down to 23 flights in LGB, the question is what could they do from here. As a result of the cuts, only about 1/3 of their remaining flights are likely to directly compete against WN to strong WN stations. Since they cut down frequencies on those routes, it's likely they will loose some of their yield advantage if WN chooses to add slots for OAK/SMF/LAS. Either way, it's likely both carriers will continue to struggle out of LGB on the short haul stuff. B6 seems to at least be profitable on the transcon/midcon stuff or even flights to SEA/PDX/SLC. The question is will they stick around or should they stay?

There maybe better station to put their much smaller schedule. We can assume LAX will continue to be the premium transcon station along with some non-premium transcon. They may add more there, but it's probably not possible to build a real hub to compete with 5 larger carriers out of LAX. SNA is high yielding and they are on the waiting list, but they probably won't be able to get more than 3 to 5 slots. If they can get c series, they could do transcon flights out of there. Until then, they will probably fly to SFO or LAS with the slots they will get for next year. They can certainly move all their transcon stuff from LGB to SNA if they choose to leave LGB down the line.

So, that narrows us down to 3 stations LGB, BUR and ONT. Conventional wisdom would tells us BUR might be the most high yielding of the 3 due to its location and proximity to LAX. ONT is said to be lower yielding but faces strong WN competition. LGB is even lower yielding, but B6 has been there longer and have some advantages. So I took a look are the fare numbers for Q3 and Q4 and the numbers are quite interesting.

In order to get a gage of yield, I took a look at stations that carriers fly to out of all 3 places.
to PHX
CityPair Distance Carrier Boarded AvgFare LF AvgAsm PRASM
ONTPHX 325 AA 131285 154.85 83.00% 128.52 0.3954
ONTPHX 325 WN 240461 151.4 78.08% 118.21 0.3637
ONTPHX 325 YV 43397 162.73 83.51% 135.9 0.4182
BURPHX 369 WN 233681 147.57 79.41% 117.18 0.3175
BURPHX 369 YV 65813 167.54 82.03% 137.43 0.3724
LGBPHX 355 OO 4672 147.55 83.43% 123.09 0.3467
LGBPHX 355 YV 57721 153.52 72.28% 110.97 0.3126
Not surprisingly here AA does the worst to PHX out of LGB. Even mainline on AA/WN out of ONT does better than regional AA out of LGB. No wonder AA is voluntarily giving up slots. Surprisingly though, AA and WN does equal if not better out of ONT considering there are more flights and AA is going mainline out of ON
Next DEN
ONTDEN 819 OO 1017 240.42 89.84% 216 0.2637
ONTDEN 819 WN 93297 169.46 90.67% 153.65 0.1876
ONTDEN 819 F9 21894 55.85 87.72% 48.99 0.0598
ONTDEN 819 UA 80656 180.94 89.20% 161.4 0.1971
BURDEN 850 OO 24892 205.37 87.03% 178.73 0.2103
BURDEN 850 WN 103399 164.28 90.69% 148.99 0.1753
BURDEN 850 UA 24407 178.63 65.39% 116.8 0.1374
LGBDEN 854 WN 10506 115.16 64.45% 74.21 0.0869
Again, LGB was by far the worst here for WN. It's no wonder they discontinued it. Ignoring F9, WN and UA mainline + regional all do better out of ONT
Next SLC
ONTSLC 558 OO 44449 192.35 89.67% 172.47 0.3091
ONTSLC 558 DL 38621 163.14 81.66% 133.22 0.2387
BURSLC 574 OO 70837 149.31 82.58% 123.31 0.2148
BURSLC 574 WN 53225 107.84 59.44% 64.1 0.1117
LGBSLC 588 OO 96180 118.93 89.06% 105.92 0.1801
LGBSLC 588 B6 164713 106.78 82.38% 87.96 0.1496
Against LGB is the worst, ONT is the best. Now, DL does have a monopoly here, so that helps them, but it's still a huge advantage vs other 2 stations. It's not clear to me why DL wants additional slots given their regional is doing far worse than mainline out of ONT.
Next SFO
ONTSFO 363 OO 109298 175.36 78.78% 138.15 0.3806
BURSFO 326 OO 68866 151.19 83.03% 125.52 0.385
BURSFO 326 WN 139447 109.96 69.08% 75.96 0.233
BURSFO 326 UA 67914 135.95 65.99% 89.72 0.2752
LGBSFO 354 B6 180892 85.39 66.96% 57.17 0.1615
B6 really does very poorly here. Again ONT does the best, probably because WN doesn't compete there at all.
Now WN large stations of OAK/SJC/SMF/LAS
ONTLAS 197 WN 168774 156.98 76.52% 120.12 0.6098
ONTOAK 362 WN 277831 122.71 75.01% 92.05 0.2543
ONTSJC 333 WN 158978 118.2 69.51% 82.16 0.2467
ONTSMF 390 WN 263608 141.15 74.67% 105.4 0.2703
BURLAS 223 WN 326029 148.7 68.14% 101.32 0.4543
BUROAK 325 WN 431263 130.5 72.66% 94.81 0.2917
BURSJC 296 OO 38139 89.59 55.82% 50.01 0.1689
BURSJC 296 QX 6049 90.36 57.68% 52.12 0.1761
BURSJC 296 WN 288660 115.4 66.87% 77.17 0.2607
BURSMF 358 WN 264670 139.66 72.94% 101.87 0.2846
LGBLAS 231 WN 29963 67.01 76.35% 51.16 0.2215
LGBLAS 231 B6 277943 73.15 82.10% 60.05 0.26
LGBOAK 353 WN 141280 89.36 74.15% 66.26 0.1877
LGBOAK 353 B6 149390 90.91 67.38% 61.26 0.1735
LGBSJC 324 B6 133447 84.45 61.31% 51.78 0.1598
LGBSMF 387 WN 60735 90.75 69.63% 63.19 0.1633
LGBSMF 387 B6 86391 104.16 78.47% 81.73 0.2112
B6+WN really looses money out of LGB on these routes. Things are more even at ONT and BUR. ONT seems to have less capacity on OAK/SJC/LAS. I assume that's because there is more demand around BUR, so WN adjusted capacity accordingly. SMF is more even with ONT yielding a little better.
Now SEA/PDX
ONTPDX 838 OO 48036 177.76 87.82% 156.11 0.1863
ONTPDX 838 WN 43770 148.24 83.21% 123.36 0.1472
ONTSEA 956 OO 4155 186.09 90.13% 167.72 0.1754
ONTSEA 956 AS 131827 162.07 81.98% 132.86 0.139
ONTSEA 956 QX 3254 207.57 89.20% 185.15 0.1937
BURPDX 817 OO 32632 173.94 86.92% 151.18 0.185
BURPDX 817 WN 42063 142.23 79.88% 113.62 0.1391
BURPDX 817 AS 30544 141.21 88.40% 124.82 0.1528
BURPDX 817 QX 19279 144.29 82.90% 119.61 0.1464
BURSEA 937 AS 150288 170.49 87.51% 149.19 0.1592
LGBPDX 846 B6 98612 131.87 89.93% 118.6 0.1402
LGBSEA 965 B6 99121 141.12 90.27% 127.39 0.132
numbers look a little better out of LGB here, but still less than what we see out of ONT/BUR even though they are all B6 monopolies. Now AS has a larger presence in BUR than ONT. So that probably explains why BUR's SEA numbers look a little better, but PDX seem to do better out of ONT.

Overall, it seems to me that ONT yields better than BUR on longer stuff whereas BUR has advantage and can handle more capacity on shorter range stuff. I assume this is because LAX is a lot closer to BUR, so people closer to BUR just choose to put up with the hassle of LAX for the schedule convenience on the longer stuff. So even if ONT catchment area is less wealthy, it captures more of the wealth fro its area than BUR does. But for shorter stuff, the great schedule out of BUR makes it easier to choose BUR ahead of ONT. And the more wealthy population around BUR wins out.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5732
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: When Will B6 Pull Out of LGB?

Sat Apr 28, 2018 1:25 am

Before I went into the numbers above, I was expecting BUR to be the highest yielding of the 3 but it looks to me that ONT is higher yielding for anything greater than 500 miles.

I think that B6 is most likely looking for an operation to JFK/BOS/FLL/MCO?/AUS/RNO/SLC/SEA/PDX/SFO/LAS. Looking at the 3)
LGB - Low yielding + fines, but B6 has reputation there with nice new terminal and have shown to yield better than WN.
BUR - higher yielding + more capacity to OAK/SJC/LAS/SMF. Has gate constraint + short runway + NIMBYs. JetSuiteX is there, so JetBlue can promote people to fly JetSuiteX on those WN strongholds and just fly other routes. It's also closer to LAX, so can combine with LAX service to possibly be a viable option to people in the area. We know JFK-BUR yields as well as LGB-BUR despite being their lonely flight there and a redeye. So clearly higher yielding on transcon stuff
ONT - no curfew, no fines, no gate constraints long runway, FIS + no NIMBYs. On the downside, it's far away from LAX and JetSuiteX that it will be a more standalone operation. However, they will be able to build it as large as they want and fly to Mexican beach destinations as they had originally wanted with LGB. And the yields seem to be better for longer range stuff. And ONT seems eager to have B6 there, so maybe willing to reduce fees in the beginning.

For me, I think ONT is the best choice long term even though it's further away in a less wealthy area. The yields are better for longer range stuff. WN even flies to MDW out of there when it doesn't try that out of BUR. And they have the option to add international flights to get more connection traffic. Potentially, they could even work with international carrier like China airlines in this case for feeds. And it's at least a possibility that HA would fly out of ONT at some point with A321NEO, whereas BUR is not possible with its short runway.

I think they should keep the 3 transcon flights as is at BUR. Move all of their flights from LGB to BUR except putting all of the bay area flights to SFO (so 5 on SFO-LGB) + add 1 to MCO. They could also add Mexican flights to PVR/SJD/CUN/MEX/MZT for feeds.

On routes where they have frequency and competition like SFO/LAS/SMF/SLC, even if they get 60% of the yields of the existing carrier on them, they'd do better than LGB right now.

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