Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Why no ISP-LAX?
This route makes perfect sense. Many Long Islanders and Southern Californians have family in both areas. Many Long Islanders also travel to socal for vacation as well. I am sure there is also enough business travelers to make the route profitable. It should work just as well as ISP-MCO is working. I live right by ISP yet take B6 from kennedy to lax/lgb/bur. I have traveled on that route multiple times and every time I sit next to somebody either visiting long island or visiting socal. I dont know why nobody is on this route as I am sure even a 2x daily would have full flights.
-
- PatrickZ80
- Posts: 4420
- Joined:
Re: Why no ISP-LAX?
The runway at Long Island MacArthur is rather short, this might be an issue.
-
- Art at ISP
- Posts: 226
- Joined:
Re: Why no ISP-LAX?
If only..... not that I'd mind it, but the problem is that if an airline started such service it would dilute their presence at JFK, so there is little incentive to do so. Just look what happened to WN at ISP--as soon as they got slots at LGA they abandoned ISP faster than you can say FAA, except for a token schedule.
Also, ULCCs like Frontier are not conducive to long flights, due to their seats and lack of amenities. Nickel and diming is not going to work on an ISP-LAX market.
Finally, there is the issue of the short runway, which would mean choosing either fuel or payload on some aircraft. I would think an A320 or 737 would be making fuel stops or they would have to limit the number of passengers and cargo on such a flight.
All that aside, it would be a great thing......if only.....
Also, ULCCs like Frontier are not conducive to long flights, due to their seats and lack of amenities. Nickel and diming is not going to work on an ISP-LAX market.
Finally, there is the issue of the short runway, which would mean choosing either fuel or payload on some aircraft. I would think an A320 or 737 would be making fuel stops or they would have to limit the number of passengers and cargo on such a flight.
All that aside, it would be a great thing......if only.....
Re: Why no ISP-LAX?
dbman1 wrote:I live right by ISP yet take B6 from kennedy to lax/lgb/bur. I have traveled on that route multiple times and every time I sit next to somebody either visiting long island or visiting socal. I dont know why nobody is on this route as I am sure even a 2x daily would have full flights.
Because just like you, most people are willing to travel to JFK for those flights, so there is no reason for airlines to add to (or move) their NYC service to capture Long Island flyers.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
Re: Why no ISP-LAX?
dbman1 wrote:This route makes perfect sense. Many Long Islanders and Southern Californians have family in both areas. Many Long Islanders also travel to socal for vacation as well.
So you've named two sources of traditionally low yielding traffic (VFR and leisure), but you're expecting they would pay a premium to fly out of ISP?
dbman1 wrote:I live right by ISP yet take B6 from kennedy to lax/lgb/bur.
ding ding ding! You're willing to drive to JFK to go transcon, and others are as well. The carriers know this, so why dilute a valuable JFK presence for ISP?
dbman1 wrote:I dont know why nobody is on this route as I am sure even a 2x daily would have full flights.
Full flights don't equate to profitable flights.
Re: Why no ISP-LAX?
You should be asking first..... why hasn't WN re-added ISP-MDW? Clearly wasn't demand and seats weren't filling up on the route. If ISP can't sustain Chicago service on AA or WN, then no West Coast flights for sure.
-
- CobaltScar
- Posts: 791
- Joined:
Re: Why no ISP-LAX?
Because there is plenty of LAX service just down the LIRR at JFK.
Re: Why no ISP-LAX?
CobaltScar wrote:Because there is plenty of LAX service just down the LIRR at JFK.
This. In the US, there are few airports with such solid regional rail (almost) directly connected to the airport as JFK.
-
- Balloonchaser
- Posts: 287
- Joined:
Re: Why no ISP-LAX?
ISP will be solidly connected (Via a monorail) Hopefully sometime in the 2020s.
Re: Why no ISP-LAX?
There are probably twenty cities on the east coast that could fill an A320 or 737 to LA and/or San Francisco, and several that could do so profitability but due to proximity to major airports or other factors will never even be looked at.
-
- GuruJanitor
- Posts: 50
- Joined:
Re: Why no ISP-LAX?
Balloonchaser wrote:ISP will be solidly connected (Via a monorail) Hopefully sometime in the 2020s.
Where have you heard this? In the master plan I've read there is no mention of a rail link from Ronkonkoma to the terminal? A monorail?
The 2017 master plan calls for a small 500' extension of 6/24, a 2000' extension of 15/33, a rebuilt and extended B (west) concourse, and converting 10/26 to a taxiway.
http://www.macarthurairport.com/images/ ... ummary.pdf
Re: Why no ISP-LAX?
Southwest will have daily nonstop service from EWR to SAN and OAK starting on April 8th. If Southwest plans on serving LAX nonstop from the NYC area, Southwest would likely add nonstop service from EWR to LAX. I do not expect Southwest to add nonstop service from ISP to LAX or any other West Coast destination anytime soon, but Southwest adding EWR-LAX nonstop service might be a possibility since Southwest will have nonstop service from EWR to two other California airports starting on April 8th and since LAX is one of the top destinations from EWR.
JFK is much closer to the Long Island suburbs than EWR is, and in addition to that, AA, DL, and B6 all already have nonstop service from JFK to LAX, SFO, SEA, PDX, and SAN. AS also has nonstop service from JFK to SEA, PDX, SFO, and LAX, and B6 also serves SMF nonstop from JFK.
JFK is much closer to the Long Island suburbs than EWR is, and in addition to that, AA, DL, and B6 all already have nonstop service from JFK to LAX, SFO, SEA, PDX, and SAN. AS also has nonstop service from JFK to SEA, PDX, SFO, and LAX, and B6 also serves SMF nonstop from JFK.
-
- citationjet
- Posts: 2569
- Joined:
Re: Why no ISP-LAX?
Another thread six months ago asked a similar question (Southern Calif instead of LAX). https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1368843
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773,788.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: AC4500, Airontario, AMALH747430, AmericanAir88, ANZDC10, astuteman, atsiang, audidudi, Austin787, AVLAirlineFreq, Ayala, BA744PHX, Baidu [Spider], Bluegrass60, BlueSky1976, burnsie28, Calledonian, CanadianRedneck, Channex737, DarkSnowyNight, DenverTed, drewwright, Ducari, egnr, Flaps, flight152, flyinryan99, Google Adsense [Bot], holeham, hoons90, IADFan, jeffrey0032j, jodie, jspams20, jumbojettony, kaneporta1, kokpedro, LGeneReese, many321, N965UW, Newark727, Opus99, ordbosewr, PA815, pegasus1, pmanni1, Revelation, ryanflyer, SANFan, Scraig08, Sightseer, Sooner787, Speedbird96, Thule, UAEflyer, vtchaz78, williaminsd, winstonavgeek, yyztpa2, Zbogart757 and 432 guests