Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24812
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:02 pm

In accordance with the City of Long Beach Airport noise ordinance which has a cumulative noise budget, 3 additional supplemental air carrier slots will be allocated for 2020.

As air carriers operate at the lowest possible noise levels, the airport is able to allocate additional slots and still fall under the total cumulative noise budget.

The airport currently allows 41 permanent and 9 supplemental slots which will increase to 12 in 2020.

The 3 additional slots will be allocated among air carriers on the waiting list - DL, HA and WN. Airlines will have 30 days to accept or reject the new slots.

Fewer late-night flights result in more supplemental slots at Long Beach Airport
https://lbpost.com/news/more-supplement ... ch-airport

=

As article notes, the reduction of JetBlue flights and late night violations largely made the additional slots available. One late night flight equals 10 daytime flights in the noise budget.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20573
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:18 pm

I love flying out of LGB. I'm currently at LAX, remembering why I prefer LGB, but there just are not enough direct flights from LGB. 3 more is nice.
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
Jamake1
Posts: 1008
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:24 pm

I’m sure Southwest will get them.
Come fly the sun.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20573
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:33 pm

How is the wait list done? Rotating airlines seems fair.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:07 pm

Hardly surprising that WN wants more LGB slots...interesting that DL and HA also do though. Is HA interested in boosting LGB-HNL frequency, or perhaps taking a stab at LGB-OGG - ostensibly to serve Orange County travelers (and other in Greater Los Angeles seeking to avoid LAX) heading to Maui? Is DL thinking about giving SEA-LGB or ATL-LGB a try?

Perhaps my biggest takeaway of all is that B6 "declined to be included in the allocation process". It seems they may have finally found a domestic LGB operation that works.. and are finally not willing to take losses at this notoriously low yielding airport just to keep scarce slots away from competitors.
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6081
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:05 pm

lightsaber wrote:
How is the wait list done? Rotating airlines seems fair.

Lightsaber


The only one that wants Long Beach slots In large numbers is Southwest

We saw this during the last round of slots that came open… The other carriers didn’t ask for much of anything

Long Beach isnt a gold mine...
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 592
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:35 pm

Funny to see how B6 drawing LGB down and reducing their noise violations helps other airlines gain even more slots.
I fly your boxes
 
User avatar
GlobalAirways
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:03 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:54 pm

I would like to see Chicago and/or Dallas on American and Atlanta on Delta.
There is little difference in people, but that little difference makes a big difference. The little difference is attitude. The big difference is whether it is positive or negative. ~ W. Clement Stone
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4850
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:09 am

Only thing I can imagine delta doing is ATL?
 
carljanderson
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:29 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:24 am

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
Only thing I can imagine delta doing is ATL?


they didn't add ATL when they we granted 3 slots from the number that B6 sent back. they chose LAS. I dont see them adding ATL with a supplemental slot.
 
wnflyguy
Posts: 2040
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:43 am

AA and JetBlue both took a pass.
Hawaiian is only getting a few more A321 so I don't see LGB high on the list since they passed at getting permanent slots last round.
Delta took 3 slots last round and has already retreated by not using all it's slots. WN has benefited from it because along with the still unused B6 slot they have been able to add some less than Daily LAS and DEN flying every 180 days out.
Southwest/WN
Will definitely try for all 3 slots.
Most likely make 2 LAS and 1 DEN Daily.

Flyguy
My Wings are clipped just another Retired Airline person. The Ultimate Armchair out of the loop airline industry geek. Aloha Mr Hand!
 
airlineworker
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:20 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:13 am

Great news, I hate to see an airport hamstrung, but adding more slots is a move forward for a handy airport. If perhaps adding a few slots per year can let LGB grow gradually and with newer planes coming on line, quieter operations can yield more flights with quieter aircraft.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5462
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:19 am

Saying wn has benefited is kind of strong since they hemorrhage money on lgb stuff. Let's face it, they are only just waiting for b6 to quit. Their assumption is that it will suddenly become profitable without b6 competition. I find that quite a dubious assumption.
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 592
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:03 am

tphuang wrote:
Saying wn has benefited is kind of strong since they hemorrhage money on lgb stuff. Let's face it, they are only just waiting for b6 to quit. Their assumption is that it will suddenly become profitable without b6 competition. I find that quite a dubious assumption.


WN hardly needs to make money on a station basis. As the largest airline in California and the largest between LA basin and Bay Area, LGB becomes another valuable spoke that helps connect markets.
I know many that commute and mix/match airports regularly. LGB helps WN build SoCal market presence even more and fill a hole between LAX and SNA.

So ultimately WN investment at LGB should be viewed as part of a broader California strategy solidifying airline in the state.
I fly your boxes
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5733
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:09 am

tphuang wrote:

Saying wn has benefited is kind of strong since they hemorrhage money on lgb stuff. Let's face it, they are only just waiting for b6 to quit. Their assumption is that it will suddenly become profitable without b6 competition. I find that quite a dubious assumption.


WN is playing the long game @ LGB. They have the type of operation suited to it. Look down the road, every slot they grab that opens up either by B6 dropping a slot or grabbing one or more when they become available boosts their overall California network and helps their bigger stations like LAS and DEN with some more feed. By not ignoring LGB they can keep the upcoming Moxy at bay in SoCal as well. Breaking even on LGB ops would probably keep WN happy. A little profit is just icing on the cake.
Next up: STL DEN PSP DEN STL
 
wnflyguy
Posts: 2040
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:36 am

WN is making money in LGB it's has succeeded in back filling the void from the loss of slots/seats at SNA.
LGB since the arrival of WN has seen a huge passenger increase across the board. JetBlue especially has actually benefited with the arrival WN in LGB. it's brought a bigger drawl to LGB that would otherwise chosen SNA,LAX or ONT. The OAK,SJC and SMF business passenger now has 6 flights a day in each market between WN & B6 vs the old 2 daily before WN.
Yes WN is in the long game at LGB. it's said since its arrival in LGB could easily be midsize station in its network and would take any and all slots available.

There has been Talk before of WN looking at making LGB its SoCal/LA Hawaii gate way.
If WN were to get let's say just 2 slots I wouldn't put it pass them to Run a morning DEN roundtrip with the afternoon flight going to HNL arriving in time for connects to OGG,LIH,ITO,KOA.
WN HNL Hawaii operation has enough flexibility to schedule a return flight that would arrive in LGB around 20:30/21:00 to feed returning inter Island connection.

Flyguy
My Wings are clipped just another Retired Airline person. The Ultimate Armchair out of the loop airline industry geek. Aloha Mr Hand!
 
tphuang
Posts: 5462
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:29 pm

wnflyguy wrote:
WN is making money in LGB it's has succeeded in back filling the void from the loss of slots/seats at SNA.
LGB since the arrival of WN has seen a huge passenger increase across the board. JetBlue especially has actually benefited with the arrival WN in LGB. it's brought a bigger drawl to LGB that would otherwise chosen SNA,LAX or ONT. The OAK,SJC and SMF business passenger now has 6 flights a day in each market between WN & B6 vs the old 2 daily before WN.
Yes WN is in the long game at LGB. it's said since its arrival in LGB could easily be midsize station in its network and would take any and all slots available.

There has been Talk before of WN looking at making LGB its SoCal/LA Hawaii gate way.
If WN were to get let's say just 2 slots I wouldn't put it pass them to Run a morning DEN roundtrip with the afternoon flight going to HNL arriving in time for connects to OGG,LIH,ITO,KOA.
WN HNL Hawaii operation has enough flexibility to schedule a return flight that would arrive in LGB around 20:30/21:00 to feed returning inter Island connection.

Flyguy

You clearly have not seen the numbers.

But the good news is that JetBlue is less committed than ever at lgb. All it takes is a couple of bad quarters for them and space opening up at lax.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6081
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:36 pm

tphuang wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
WN is making money in LGB it's has succeeded in back filling the void from the loss of slots/seats at SNA.
LGB since the arrival of WN has seen a huge passenger increase across the board. JetBlue especially has actually benefited with the arrival WN in LGB. it's brought a bigger drawl to LGB that would otherwise chosen SNA,LAX or ONT. The OAK,SJC and SMF business passenger now has 6 flights a day in each market between WN & B6 vs the old 2 daily before WN.
Yes WN is in the long game at LGB. it's said since its arrival in LGB could easily be midsize station in its network and would take any and all slots available.

There has been Talk before of WN looking at making LGB its SoCal/LA Hawaii gate way.
If WN were to get let's say just 2 slots I wouldn't put it pass them to Run a morning DEN roundtrip with the afternoon flight going to HNL arriving in time for connects to OGG,LIH,ITO,KOA.
WN HNL Hawaii operation has enough flexibility to schedule a return flight that would arrive in LGB around 20:30/21:00 to feed returning inter Island connection.

Flyguy

You clearly have not seen the numbers.

But the good news is that JetBlue is less committed than ever at lgb. All it takes is a couple of bad quarters for them and space opening up at lax.



Spot on.

If B6 leaves (which it will in time) there will lots of slots sitting around at LGB...which is what allowed B6 to enter in the first place

The airline business isnt emotional when it comes to business decisions...until it is

There is A LOT of bad blood between B6 and LGB.
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 5747
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:38 pm

wnflyguy wrote:
AA and JetBlue both took a pass.
Hawaiian is only getting a few more A321 so I don't see LGB high on the list since they passed at getting permanent slots last round.
Delta took 3 slots last round and has already retreated by not using all it's slots. WN has benefited from it because along with the still unused B6 slot they have been able to add some less than Daily LAS and DEN flying every 180 days out.
Southwest/WN
Will definitely try for all 3 slots.
Most likely make 2 LAS and 1 DEN Daily.

Flyguy


You'd be wrong about HA, IIRC, when HA requested & was subsequently obtained their slot for HNL, they indeed requested a second frequency & were denied. I believe they are on top of this list for a OGG slot. Their tie in with B6 may be some of the consideration, but HA does very well out of LGB & will continue to keep that market as their own. Most of this I learned on this forum, take that for what it's worth.
707 717 720 727-1/2 737-1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 747-1/2/3/4 757-2/3 767-2/3/4 777-2/3 DC8 DC9 MD80/2/7/8 D10-1/3/4 M11 L10-1/2/5 A300/310/320
AA AC AQ AS BA BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HG HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN WP YS 8M
 
PSAatSAN4Ever
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:34 pm

I'm surprised the Long Beach branch of BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) hasn't staged a protest louder than a water-injected DC-8 at LAX on a hot day. After all, Long Beach's ONLY source of pollution is that incredibly nasty airport that everyone wants torn down! And by everyone, I of course mean those who bought a house near the airport with the immediate priority of closing it down. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Has nothing to do with B6 and their embarrassingly poor performance at LGB (and yes, I support LGB's right to fine the airline when they don't do squat to improve their performance at an airport with a curfew!) - the citizens of southern California have always had a hate-love relationship with BUR, LGB, and SNA, (debatably SAN, but not included in this point), with nearby residents knowingly having moved their fully aware of the proximity of the neary airport, liking it only when it is convenient for them, with the other 90% of the time crying in misery. "Can't everything just fly into LAX?"

LGB was perfect for JetBlue in the beginning - it was great free advertising, as the start-up airline choosing to avoid LAX and fly from relatively simple Long Beach. Expansion to other airports did occur, but the need for LGB isn't as high a priority as it once was. Unless somehow yields were astronomical, why would B6 want to stick around running the risk of fines? I love JetBlue, but if the airline isn't willing to prioritize curfew-restricted airports, then it deserved to get fined. Time for those slots to go to another airline.

Since one can land at LGB at anytime (no long, low, high-powered approaches are permitted, but that's the only restriction I could fine on landings), it strikes me that in "denying" new slots it might be a matter more of gate availability for the new airline route (no gate space at the requested times?) as opposed to any other reason. I could be wrong on this, but I can't think of any other logical conclusion. It couldn't be aircraft type, as the MD-80 (all built at this airport) is nearly gone, and everything else is Stage 3 and/or 4 compliant. I can't see the route being the reason, because denying OGG makes no sense.

What are the thoughts of the panel here?
 
11C
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:58 pm

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
I'm surprised the Long Beach branch of BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) hasn't staged a protest louder than a water-injected DC-8 at LAX on a hot day. After all, Long Beach's ONLY source of pollution is that incredibly nasty airport that everyone wants torn down! And by everyone, I of course mean those who bought a house near the airport with the immediate priority of closing it down. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Has nothing to do with B6 and their embarrassingly poor performance at LGB (and yes, I support LGB's right to fine the airline when they don't do squat to improve their performance at an airport with a curfew!) - the citizens of southern California have always had a hate-love relationship with BUR, LGB, and SNA, (debatably SAN, but not included in this point), with nearby residents knowingly having moved their fully aware of the proximity of the neary airport, liking it only when it is convenient for them, with the other 90% of the time crying in misery. "Can't everything just fly into LAX?"

LGB was perfect for JetBlue in the beginning - it was great free advertising, as the start-up airline choosing to avoid LAX and fly from relatively simple Long Beach. Expansion to other airports did occur, but the need for LGB isn't as high a priority as it once was. Unless somehow yields were astronomical, why would B6 want to stick around running the risk of fines? I love JetBlue, but if the airline isn't willing to prioritize curfew-restricted airports, then it deserved to get fined. Time for those slots to go to another airline.

Since one can land at LGB at anytime (no long, low, high-powered approaches are permitted, but that's the only restriction I could fine on landings), it strikes me that in "denying" new slots it might be a matter more of gate availability for the new airline route (no gate space at the requested times?) as opposed to any other reason. I could be wrong on this, but I can't think of any other logical conclusion. It couldn't be aircraft type, as the MD-80 (all built at this airport) is nearly gone, and everything else is Stage 3 and/or 4 compliant. I can't see the route being the reason, because denying OGG makes no sense.

What are the thoughts of the panel here?


Not sure what you mean here, “Since one can land at LGB at anytime...”. The airport does not close, but the curfew does apply to any jet operation, takeoff, or landing. So, you can do it, but you have to pay the fine, and under the new scheme, risk losing slots.
 
PSAatSAN4Ever
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:24 pm

11C wrote:
PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
I'm surprised the Long Beach branch of BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) hasn't staged a protest louder than a water-injected DC-8 at LAX on a hot day. After all, Long Beach's ONLY source of pollution is that incredibly nasty airport that everyone wants torn down! And by everyone, I of course mean those who bought a house near the airport with the immediate priority of closing it down. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Has nothing to do with B6 and their embarrassingly poor performance at LGB (and yes, I support LGB's right to fine the airline when they don't do squat to improve their performance at an airport with a curfew!) - the citizens of southern California have always had a hate-love relationship with BUR, LGB, and SNA, (debatably SAN, but not included in this point), with nearby residents knowingly having moved their fully aware of the proximity of the neary airport, liking it only when it is convenient for them, with the other 90% of the time crying in misery. "Can't everything just fly into LAX?"

LGB was perfect for JetBlue in the beginning - it was great free advertising, as the start-up airline choosing to avoid LAX and fly from relatively simple Long Beach. Expansion to other airports did occur, but the need for LGB isn't as high a priority as it once was. Unless somehow yields were astronomical, why would B6 want to stick around running the risk of fines? I love JetBlue, but if the airline isn't willing to prioritize curfew-restricted airports, then it deserved to get fined. Time for those slots to go to another airline.

Since one can land at LGB at anytime (no long, low, high-powered approaches are permitted, but that's the only restriction I could fine on landings), it strikes me that in "denying" new slots it might be a matter more of gate availability for the new airline route (no gate space at the requested times?) as opposed to any other reason. I could be wrong on this, but I can't think of any other logical conclusion. It couldn't be aircraft type, as the MD-80 (all built at this airport) is nearly gone, and everything else is Stage 3 and/or 4 compliant. I can't see the route being the reason, because denying OGG makes no sense.

What are the thoughts of the panel here?


Not sure what you mean here, “Since one can land at LGB at anytime...”. The airport does not close, but the curfew does apply to any jet operation, takeoff, or landing. So, you can do it, but you have to pay the fine, and under the new scheme, risk losing slots.


To clarify: I could find no reference to LBG closing for landings at all. The only curfew I know is for take-offs, much like SAN. If this information is incorrect, please update it here, because I can find no reference to a landing curfew.
 
11C
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:50 pm

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
11C wrote:
PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
I'm surprised the Long Beach branch of BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) hasn't staged a protest louder than a water-injected DC-8 at LAX on a hot day. After all, Long Beach's ONLY source of pollution is that incredibly nasty airport that everyone wants torn down! And by everyone, I of course mean those who bought a house near the airport with the immediate priority of closing it down. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Has nothing to do with B6 and their embarrassingly poor performance at LGB (and yes, I support LGB's right to fine the airline when they don't do squat to improve their performance at an airport with a curfew!) - the citizens of southern California have always had a hate-love relationship with BUR, LGB, and SNA, (debatably SAN, but not included in this point), with nearby residents knowingly having moved their fully aware of the proximity of the neary airport, liking it only when it is convenient for them, with the other 90% of the time crying in misery. "Can't everything just fly into LAX?"

LGB was perfect for JetBlue in the beginning - it was great free advertising, as the start-up airline choosing to avoid LAX and fly from relatively simple Long Beach. Expansion to other airports did occur, but the need for LGB isn't as high a priority as it once was. Unless somehow yields were astronomical, why would B6 want to stick around running the risk of fines? I love JetBlue, but if the airline isn't willing to prioritize curfew-restricted airports, then it deserved to get fined. Time for those slots to go to another airline.

Since one can land at LGB at anytime (no long, low, high-powered approaches are permitted, but that's the only restriction I could fine on landings), it strikes me that in "denying" new slots it might be a matter more of gate availability for the new airline route (no gate space at the requested times?) as opposed to any other reason. I could be wrong on this, but I can't think of any other logical conclusion. It couldn't be aircraft type, as the MD-80 (all built at this airport) is nearly gone, and everything else is Stage 3 and/or 4 compliant. I can't see the route being the reason, because denying OGG makes no sense.

What are the thoughts of the panel here?


Not sure what you mean here, “Since one can land at LGB at anytime...”. The airport does not close, but the curfew does apply to any jet operation, takeoff, or landing. So, you can do it, but you have to pay the fine, and under the new scheme, risk losing slots.


To clarify: I could find no reference to LBG closing for landings at all. The only curfew I know is for take-offs, much like SAN. If this information is incorrect, please update it here, because I can find no reference to a landing curfew.


I tried to clarify. The airport doesn’t “close,” per se, but the curfew hours apply to any jet operation, takeoff, or landing.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 7:08 pm

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
I'm surprised the Long Beach branch of BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) hasn't staged a protest louder than a water-injected DC-8 at LAX on a hot day. After all, Long Beach's ONLY source of pollution is that incredibly nasty airport that everyone wants torn down! And by everyone, I of course mean those who bought a house near the airport with the immediate priority of closing it down. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Has nothing to do with B6 and their embarrassingly poor performance at LGB (and yes, I support LGB's right to fine the airline when they don't do squat to improve their performance at an airport with a curfew!) - the citizens of southern California have always had a hate-love relationship with BUR, LGB, and SNA, (debatably SAN, but not included in this point), with nearby residents knowingly having moved their fully aware of the proximity of the neary airport, liking it only when it is convenient for them, with the other 90% of the time crying in misery. "Can't everything just fly into LAX?"


The area surrounding LGB has dramatically changed since the start of the Millennium. Places like Lakewood, Westminster and parts of Long Beach that were decaying... have been re-gentrified into thriving communities And places like Seal Beach, which were once working class communities housing many of the people working for McDonnell Douglas and related suppliers... are now uber wealthy. housing mostly high-income professionals. The communities changed. Long Beach is their community airport -- it isn't like people from Torrance or Tustin are going to use it. If they don't want the airport, or they want to limit its presence, that's their choice.
 
11C
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sat Dec 14, 2019 7:09 pm

wnflyguy wrote:
WN is making money in LGB it's has succeeded in back filling the void from the loss of slots/seats at SNA.
LGB since the arrival of WN has seen a huge passenger increase across the board. JetBlue especially has actually benefited with the arrival WN in LGB. it's brought a bigger drawl to LGB that would otherwise chosen SNA,LAX or ONT. The OAK,SJC and SMF business passenger now has 6 flights a day in each market between WN & B6 vs the old 2 daily before WN.
Yes WN is in the long game at LGB. it's said since its arrival in LGB could easily be midsize station in its network and would take any and all slots available.

There has been Talk before of WN looking at making LGB its SoCal/LA Hawaii gate way.
If WN were to get let's say just 2 slots I wouldn't put it pass them to Run a morning DEN roundtrip with the afternoon flight going to HNL arriving in time for connects to OGG,LIH,ITO,KOA.
WN HNL Hawaii operation has enough flexibility to schedule a return flight that would arrive in LGB around 20:30/21:00 to feed returning inter Island connection.

Flyguy


I think WN is much better suited to making LGB work than B6. When B6 got the original slot portfolio, LGB welcomed them with open arms. Over time, the relationship soured, blame who you like, but it is no longer working. WN may be able to capitalize on this, since SoCal capacity is a limited commodity. It will just represent another era passing in LGB, and will definitively demonstrate that the local opposition to the airport is strong, and willing to use questionable tactics to drum up negative sentiment regarding the airport. The LGB hush crowd seem happy to let El Segundo, Inglewood, Westchester, and the surrounding LAX communities deal with the noise that they are too sensitive to handle. So, I wish WN good luck in LGB. They certainly can offer a whole variety of options that B6 never would have. I just hope LGB doesn’t poison the well with WN the way that they seemed to have done with everyone else who has served the airport.
 
alasizon
Posts: 2629
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:55 am

11C wrote:
I just hope LGB doesn’t poison the well with WN the way that they seemed to have done with everyone else who has served the airport.


LGB has also poisoned the well with their own passengers/residents. I've seen PHX-LGB cancelled or delayed overnight about 8-10 times since the lawsuit against Mesa came out and each time it was due to LGB refusing to allow YV to land. There was even twice where YV called earlier than required and the airport told them to pound sand. That info is being relayed to passengers both that night and the next morning and not doing the airport any favors.
Airport (noun) - A construction site which airplanes tend to frequent
 
AAflyguy
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:59 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:16 am

alasizon wrote:
11C wrote:
I just hope LGB doesn’t poison the well with WN the way that they seemed to have done with everyone else who has served the airport.


LGB has also poisoned the well with their own passengers/residents. I've seen PHX-LGB cancelled or delayed overnight about 8-10 times since the lawsuit against Mesa came out and each time it was due to LGB refusing to allow YV to land. There was even twice where YV called earlier than required and the airport told them to pound sand. That info is being relayed to passengers both that night and the next morning and not doing the airport any favors.


The Airport does NOT tell an airline whether or not it can land an aircraft which is scheduled to operate. That is up to the airline. If it is arriving or departing after the curfew, it will be fined. If there’s weather, mainly fog, that’s a different situation entirely. Mesa or AA may be deciding not to fly in to avoid the fines but it is not LGB dictating that, ever. And, I cannot imagine that being the reason for a cancellation very often, if ever.

AAaflyguy
 
alasizon
Posts: 2629
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:20 am

AAflyguy wrote:
alasizon wrote:
11C wrote:
I just hope LGB doesn’t poison the well with WN the way that they seemed to have done with everyone else who has served the airport.


LGB has also poisoned the well with their own passengers/residents. I've seen PHX-LGB cancelled or delayed overnight about 8-10 times since the lawsuit against Mesa came out and each time it was due to LGB refusing to allow YV to land. There was even twice where YV called earlier than required and the airport told them to pound sand. That info is being relayed to passengers both that night and the next morning and not doing the airport any favors.


The Airport does NOT tell an airline whether or not it can land an aircraft which is scheduled to operate. That is up to the airline. If it is arriving or departing after the curfew, it will be fined. If there’s weather, mainly fog, that’s a different situation entirely. Mesa or AA may be deciding not to fly in to avoid the fines but it is not LGB dictating that, ever. And, I cannot imagine that being the reason for a cancellation very often, if ever.

AAaflyguy


Actually, LGB has to give you permission if it is after the soft curfew (2200) but before the hard curfew (2300). You have to call LGB Airport Ops and ask for permission.
Airport (noun) - A construction site which airplanes tend to frequent
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24812
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:41 am

LGB airport does not close, and operators can come and go as they wish - subject to curfew violation.

From airport operations manual:

Long Beach Airport is open 24 hours a day. Within those 24 hours, the Airport has different levels of allowable noise (see Noise Limits Chart). Airline operations must be scheduled between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., although an airline may land between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m., if weather, air traffic or mechanical issues cause a delay.
Operations after 10 p.m. without a good reason such as weather, safety or maintenance issues or any operation that exceeds the SENEL contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance shall be given a written notice that a violation has occurred. The violation may also be forwarded to the City Prosecutor.


Frankly its a pretty straight forward policy. You can bust curfew, but at your own peril. Like JetBlue and Mesa have learned, violations can become increasingly more punitive.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
wnflyguy
Posts: 2040
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:45 am

RWA380 wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
AA and JetBlue both took a pass.
Hawaiian is only getting a few more A321 so I don't see LGB high on the list since they passed at getting permanent slots last round.
Delta took 3 slots last round and has already retreated by not using all it's slots. WN has benefited from it because along with the still unused B6 slot they have been able to add some less than Daily LAS and DEN flying every 180 days out.
Southwest/WN
Will definitely try for all 3 slots.
Most likely make 2 LAS and 1 DEN Daily.

Flyguy


You'd be wrong about HA, IIRC, when HA requested & was subsequently obtained their slot for HNL, they indeed requested a second frequency & were denied. I believe they are on top of this list for a OGG slot. Their tie in with B6 may be some of the consideration, but HA does very well out of LGB & will continue to keep that market as their own. Most of this I learned on this forum, take that for what it's worth.

I would love to see Hawaiian to add another slot for a OGG flight. But the last 2 times that slots have become available HA has passed on additional capacity. Only Delta so far has asked for more slots.
I think HA going to use it's new A321 metal to beef up stronger markets like PDX,SEA,LAS,PHX,SAN and LAX.

Flyguy
My Wings are clipped just another Retired Airline person. The Ultimate Armchair out of the loop airline industry geek. Aloha Mr Hand!
 
ScottB
Posts: 7116
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:46 am

alasizon wrote:
Actually, LGB has to give you permission if it is after the soft curfew (2200) but before the hard curfew (2300). You have to call LGB Airport Ops and ask for permission.


I think you're confusing permission to land with permission to break the curfew without penalty. LGB will let Mesa land whether it's at 2201 or 0301. They're just going to get a violation notice in the mail with a fine attached.

jfklganyc wrote:
There is A LOT of bad blood between B6 and LGB.


To be perfectly frank, most of the responsibility for the bad blood lies with B6. The airport gave B6 a sweetheart deal when B6 decided to make LGB a "focus city" -- the city gave B6 every unused slot with two years to ramp up operations enough to meet the utilization conditions. (Ultimately a few of those slots were given to other carriers due to a lawsuit.) The airport built a fairly nice new terminal mostly for B6. B6 didn't get the CBP facility they wanted, but neither the City nor the airport promised that to the airline. If anything, the airline failed to do the legwork needed to build enough political support to counter a long-established group of voices in Long Beach against expansion at the airport. The existence of a vocal opposition to the airport has long been a known quantity in Long Beach -- after all, it's pretty much why there's a noise ordinance in the first place.

B6 made a bad assumption: They assumed the City would amend the noise ordinance to allow E190s to use commuter slots -- and that didn't happen. They were a bad neighbor in that they violated the curfew hundreds of times a year -- even during the period when the CBP facility was under consideration. It was an incredibly boneheaded, tone-deaf move on the part of the airline. How would it look for the Long Beach City Council to reward B6 with an international arrivals facility while the airline was angering neighbors by busting the curfew dozens of times a month? B6 squatted on slots to keep competition out -- and the airport ended up being unhappy enough with that conduct that they changed the utilization rules.

So yeah, no doubt there's plenty of bad blood but B6 mostly has themselves to blame.
 
mcogator
Posts: 557
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:40 am

WidebodyPTV wrote:
PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
I'm surprised the Long Beach branch of BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) hasn't staged a protest louder than a water-injected DC-8 at LAX on a hot day. After all, Long Beach's ONLY source of pollution is that incredibly nasty airport that everyone wants torn down! And by everyone, I of course mean those who bought a house near the airport with the immediate priority of closing it down. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Has nothing to do with B6 and their embarrassingly poor performance at LGB (and yes, I support LGB's right to fine the airline when they don't do squat to improve their performance at an airport with a curfew!) - the citizens of southern California have always had a hate-love relationship with BUR, LGB, and SNA, (debatably SAN, but not included in this point), with nearby residents knowingly having moved their fully aware of the proximity of the neary airport, liking it only when it is convenient for them, with the other 90% of the time crying in misery. "Can't everything just fly into LAX?"


The area surrounding LGB has dramatically changed since the start of the Millennium. Places like Lakewood, Westminster and parts of Long Beach that were decaying... have been re-gentrified into thriving communities And places like Seal Beach, which were once working class communities housing many of the people working for McDonnell Douglas and related suppliers... are now uber wealthy. housing mostly high-income professionals. The communities changed. Long Beach is their community airport -- it isn't like people from Torrance or Tustin are going to use it. If they don't want the airport, or they want to limit its presence, that's their choice.

I own a black car fleet and the majority of my customers using LGB are high net worth NY/NE transplants living in south OC(NB,LB,DP) who are loyal to B6, and business travelers flying in from BOS and JFK to go to resorts in those same cities or a convention in Anaheim and the random wealthy family going to Disney, even though they mostly go to FL from the NE. Very rarely do we get a customer going to somewhere in LA county, except for Terranea in PV, or the obvious convention in dtlb. We do have the random customers on the HA night flight going to Manhattan Beach/Rendondo/dtla on Sunday, because even with the drive, its quicker to take a car service from LGB than it is from LAX to Manhattan Beach on a Sunday night.
“Traveling – it leaves you speechless, then turns you into a storyteller.” – Ibn Battuta
 
11C
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Mon Dec 16, 2019 2:38 pm

ScottB wrote:
alasizon wrote:
Actually, LGB has to give you permission if it is after the soft curfew (2200) but before the hard curfew (2300). You have to call LGB Airport Ops and ask for permission.


I think you're confusing permission to land with permission to break the curfew without penalty. LGB will let Mesa land whether it's at 2201 or 0301. They're just going to get a violation notice in the mail with a fine attached.

jfklganyc wrote:
There is A LOT of bad blood between B6 and LGB.


To be perfectly frank, most of the responsibility for the bad blood lies with B6. The airport gave B6 a sweetheart deal when B6 decided to make LGB a "focus city" -- the city gave B6 every unused slot with two years to ramp up operations enough to meet the utilization conditions. (Ultimately a few of those slots were given to other carriers due to a lawsuit.) The airport built a fairly nice new terminal mostly for B6. B6 didn't get the CBP facility they wanted, but neither the City nor the airport promised that to the airline. If anything, the airline failed to do the legwork needed to build enough political support to counter a long-established group of voices in Long Beach against expansion at the airport. The existence of a vocal opposition to the airport has long been a known quantity in Long Beach -- after all, it's pretty much why there's a noise ordinance in the first place.

B6 made a bad assumption: They assumed the City would amend the noise ordinance to allow E190s to use commuter slots -- and that didn't happen. They were a bad neighbor in that they violated the curfew hundreds of times a year -- even during the period when the CBP facility was under consideration. It was an incredibly boneheaded, tone-deaf move on the part of the airline. How would it look for the Long Beach City Council to reward B6 with an international arrivals facility while the airline was angering neighbors by busting the curfew dozens of times a month? B6 squatted on slots to keep competition out -- and the airport ended up being unhappy enough with that conduct that they changed the utilization rules.

So yeah, no doubt there's plenty of bad blood but B6 mostly has themselves to blame.


I mostly agree, except for the years B6 customers spent in trailers, waiting for the terminal, that definitely left a bad taste in the mouth. I also think the customs facility may have allowed B6 to use the slots differently, possibly eliminating some of the evening departures. So, neither side is blameless. I also think the city should have considered the CBP facility on its merits, and not as a reward, or punishment for B6. By the time of the vote, I think it was being viewed as a censure of B6, but is that how you run an airport?
 
tphuang
Posts: 5462
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:31 pm

It's kind of rich to say LGB did all this stuff for B6 and B6 just squatted on slots and violated curfews.

The reality is LGB is a very low yielding airport that carriers found hard to serve outside of the nearest fortress hub. And don't just blame it on B6. AS got sick of paying people to fly to SEA from there. DL's yield to LGB is by far the lowest of all LA airports out of SLC. Same with AA to PHX. They don't even bother with DFW. WN is the flavor of month now, but if B6 leaves, let's see how long they are willing to stick around. The current WN yield to OAK/SMF/SJC/DEN/LAS out of LGB are much lower than other LA area airpots. It' hard to believe how long they are willing to stick out on a route like LGB-SJC. Their gamble is somehow B6 will leave and the yields will be satisfactory after that. Let's just say I find that quite optimistic based on history.

So while B6 stuck around at LGB waiting to get out of the trailer and then for customs facility, other LCCs like VX and NK all got into LAX and ended up with more real estate there. If B6 wasn't given the impression that these things will be done (or done sooner) to allow it to turn LGB into a sustainable operation with feeds and international flights, why would it have stuck around at LGB for that long?

B6 has made it's share of mistakes, but not moving into LAX sooner is definitely one of its bigger ones.
 
11C
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:01 pm

tphuang wrote:
It's kind of rich to say LGB did all this stuff for B6 and B6 just squatted on slots and violated curfews.

The reality is LGB is a very low yielding airport that carriers found hard to serve outside of the nearest fortress hub. And don't just blame it on B6. AS got sick of paying people to fly to SEA from there. DL's yield to LGB is by far the lowest of all LA airports out of SLC. Same with AA to PHX. They don't even bother with DFW. WN is the flavor of month now, but if B6 leaves, let's see how long they are willing to stick around. The current WN yield to OAK/SMF/SJC/DEN/LAS out of LGB are much lower than other LA area airpots. It' hard to believe how long they are willing to stick out on a route like LGB-SJC. Their gamble is somehow B6 will leave and the yields will be satisfactory after that. Let's just say I find that quite optimistic based on history.

So while B6 stuck around at LGB waiting to get out of the trailer and then for customs facility, other LCCs like VX and NK all got into LAX and ended up with more real estate there. If B6 wasn't given the impression that these things will be done (or done sooner) to allow it to turn LGB into a sustainable operation with feeds and international flights, why would it have stuck around at LGB for that long?

B6 has made it's share of mistakes, but not moving into LAX sooner is definitely one of its bigger ones.


You nailed it. Hanging around in LGB, while negatively marketing against LAX has come back to haunt B6. I think it is reflective of the Barger era. He strutted around trash talking ALPA, confident that they could never win a representation vote, until they did. His actions afterward were equally numb-skulled, regarding the pilot group. I think he thought he was pushing around the LGB airport administration similarly, and they pushed back. I think it was a ‘mutually assured destruction’ relationship-good for neither side.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7116
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:23 am

tphuang wrote:
The reality is LGB is a very low yielding airport that carriers found hard to serve outside of the nearest fortress hub. And don't just blame it on B6. AS got sick of paying people to fly to SEA from there. DL's yield to LGB is by far the lowest of all LA airports out of SLC. Same with AA to PHX. They don't even bother with DFW. WN is the flavor of month now, but if B6 leaves, let's see how long they are willing to stick around.


All true, but this isn't really the fault of the city. Low yields had historically been a problem at LGB -- B6 assumed they could get people to drive to LGB but the slots meant they could never be competitive in short-haul markets with service, primarily on WN, at other SoCal airports. I do think WN stays long-term -- if only to keep a ULCC or other new entrant from building up a strong presence in the region.

tphuang wrote:
So while B6 stuck around at LGB waiting to get out of the trailer and then for customs facility, other LCCs like VX and NK all got into LAX and ended up with more real estate there. If B6 wasn't given the impression that these things will be done (or done sooner) to allow it to turn LGB into a sustainable operation with feeds and international flights, why would it have stuck around at LGB for that long?


I suspect that the city wanted a track record of expanded service before committing tens of millions of dollars to terminal improvements, and you can hardly blame them in light of the track record of carriers leaving the airport. Being at LGB while VX and NK were able to grow at LAX is entirely JetBlue's fault. I think B6 management thought they'd be in control of the vast majority of slots at an airport which they probably felt could be the next SNA. But they misread the market and here we are today.
 
AAflyguy
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:59 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:42 am

ScottB wrote:
tphuang wrote:
The reality is LGB is a very low yielding airport that carriers found hard to serve outside of the nearest fortress hub. And don't just blame it on B6. AS got sick of paying people to fly to SEA from there. DL's yield to LGB is by far the lowest of all LA airports out of SLC. Same with AA to PHX. They don't even bother with DFW. WN is the flavor of month now, but if B6 leaves, let's see how long they are willing to stick around.


All true, but this isn't really the fault of the city. Low yields had historically been a problem at LGB -- B6 assumed they could get people to drive to LGB but the slots meant they could never be competitive in short-haul markets with service, primarily on WN, at other SoCal airports. I do think WN stays long-term -- if only to keep a ULCC or other new entrant from building up a strong presence in the region.

tphuang wrote:
So while B6 stuck around at LGB waiting to get out of the trailer and then for customs facility, other LCCs like VX and NK all got into LAX and ended up with more real estate there. If B6 wasn't given the impression that these things will be done (or done sooner) to allow it to turn LGB into a sustainable operation with feeds and international flights, why would it have stuck around at LGB for that long?


I suspect that the city wanted a track record of expanded service before committing tens of millions of dollars to terminal improvements, and you can hardly blame them in light of the track record of carriers leaving the airport. Being at LGB while VX and NK were able to grow at LAX is entirely JetBlue's fault. I think B6 management thought they'd be in control of the vast majority of slots at an airport which they probably felt could be the next SNA. But they misread the market and here we are today.


Except that B6 was going to pay the lions share of the cost for the FIS. That was known by the City/Airport. It was no secret. And, due to how airports are funded, there would be NO General Fund $$$ going to it so in actuality no City $$$ would have been used. LGB would have established a “per head” fee for all international arriving passengers and that would have recovered the initial capital outlay over a period of a few years if Airline Rates & Charges hadn’t already done so. Probably would have been a combination. One councilmember bowed to the pressure of a handful of angry/threatening constituents and flipped their vote, and then all but one of the remaining council members who would have voted to approve it weren’t willing to be THE one to push it over because the vote would have been 5-4 instead of 6-3. So it died. The vote to approve the Feasibility Study was 6-3, and it was going to be exactly the same vote to proceed, with all council members voting as they had originally.

AAflyguy
 
Blueknows
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:31 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:22 am

B6 got duped by LGB. They waited till B6 built terminal and service. The. They turned around and treated them like dirt. LGB wants B6 out and wants F9/Nk/G4 to come in. You wait when B6 leaves and LGB is begging for them to come back...ow my bad WN will just take over and get nice terminal without spending money
 
flyby519
Posts: 1578
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:06 pm

Blueknows wrote:
B6 got duped by LGB. They waited till B6 built terminal and service. The. They turned around and treated them like dirt. LGB wants B6 out and wants F9/Nk/G4 to come in. You wait when B6 leaves and LGB is begging for them to come back...ow my bad WN will just take over and get nice terminal without spending money


Then watch WN get an FIS approved by the council right after B6 leaves :banghead:
 
airplaneboy
Posts: 720
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:41 pm

Blueknows wrote:
B6 got duped by LGB. They waited till B6 built terminal and service. The. They turned around and treated them like dirt. LGB wants B6 out and wants F9/Nk/G4 to come in. You wait when B6 leaves and LGB is begging for them to come back...ow my bad WN will just take over and get nice terminal without spending money


I’m not 100% certain as it’s been a few years since the new terminal opened- but I believe the funding to build the new terminal was provided entirely by the airport itself (passenger facility charges, etc.). I’m not aware of jetBlue providing funding for the current terminal.
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:22 pm

Blueknows wrote:
B6 got duped by LGB. They waited till B6 built terminal and service. The. They turned around and treated them like dirt. LGB wants B6 out and wants F9/Nk/G4 to come in. You wait when B6 leaves and LGB is begging for them to come back...ow my bad WN will just take over and get nice terminal without spending money


:shakehead: :shakehead:

If anything LGB got duped by B6 with its very community unfriendly operational practices.

And, no the airlines did not pay for the terminal upgrades -- they are all funded by PFC, Federal grant monies and city's own funds.
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24812
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:55 pm

AAflyguy wrote:

Except that B6 was going to pay the lions share of the cost for the FIS. That was known by the City/Airport. It was no secret. And, due to how airports are funded, there would be NO General Fund $$$ going to it so in actuality no City $$$ would have been used. LGB would have established a “per head” fee for all international arriving passengers and that would have recovered the initial capital outlay over a period of a few years if Airline Rates & Charges hadn’t already done so. Probably would have been a combination. One councilmember bowed to the pressure of a handful of angry/threatening constituents and flipped their vote, and then all but one of the remaining council members who would have voted to approve it weren’t willing to be THE one to push it over because the vote would have been 5-4 instead of 6-3. So it died. The vote to approve the Feasibility Study was 6-3, and it was going to be exactly the same vote to proceed, with all council members voting as they had originally.


The vote against the FIS was 8-1.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la- ... story.html

And actually, yes city money would be used to build it, and estimate $10-21mil diverted from other uses, with a hope that enough future passengers would use it to cover its operating cost, and eventually pay back the construction cost.

Frankly, good thing it did not get built if you look at the terrible results of FIS at SNA has been and the fact that the USCBP is incredibly understaffed and cant even support required staffing levels at other land/sea/air facilities within the Port District to staff a new facility.

airplaneboy wrote:
I’m not 100% certain as it’s been a few years since the new terminal opened- but I believe the funding to build the new terminal was provided entirely by the airport itself (passenger facility charges, etc.). I’m not aware of jetBlue providing funding for the current terminal.


Indeed the terminal upgrades were not funded by airlines. Actually, airlines appreciated the way the airport structured the capital improvements with resulted in a "free" facility from them as the article from the time explains.

https://www.aviationpros.com/airports/a ... est-of-old

Rodriguez notes that typically airport facilities are financed through bonds. This debt, much like a mortgage, is paid by the airlines. The airlines, in turn, pass this cost on to their customers. "We opted to be more businesslike and prudent," he says. "Our new improvements are self-funding, which means that the cost should not be passed on to our airlines and, by default, our customers.”
Airlines got involved from the beginning, knowing they were not obligated to fund the project. “When they heard ‘free,’ they got very interested,” and were themselves free with their ideas and help, adds Rodriguez.


The exact breakdown of funding was:

35% City cash
31% Future PFC revenue
22% Future concession revenue - parking, transportation company fees, rental car franchise cost, gross receipt tax
12% Federal grants (FAA, TSA, etc)
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
tphuang
Posts: 5462
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:08 pm

let's face it. If B6 didn't come and stuck around through the financial crisis, LGB would not have had the money to do any of these projects. No one else were coming and flying out of LGB. And when B6 leaves, WN actually has to see its performance improve by a lot to stick around long term.
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4850
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:41 pm

I do think the city gave B6 a good deal when they first arrived. Then some city council members who know nothing about aviation were mad that B6 was given a good deal and made it too hard on them for too long. Initially a very good deal but that changed quick. A few city council members were very vocal with statement like JetBlue can't leave and need to pay. Acting like B6 was making tons of money at the expense of long Beach residents. They seemed to think since it was slot restricted they had an unbelievable resource just because all the slots were in use. JetBlue was an excellent supporter of local long Beach events and charities. Doubt any airline gave as much to a focus city of it's size as they did.

I hope B6 keeps it's operation as is. Maybe at this point Southwest is the best for the airports remaining slots. Truly my favorite terminal in America. If you are into aviation you have to put it on your list. Compared to lax the convenience and in/out time is amazing.
 
AAflyguy
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:59 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:29 am

LAXintl wrote:
AAflyguy wrote:

Except that B6 was going to pay the lions share of the cost for the FIS. That was known by the City/Airport. It was no secret. And, due to how airports are funded, there would be NO General Fund $$$ going to it so in actuality no City $$$ would have been used. LGB would have established a “per head” fee for all international arriving passengers and that would have recovered the initial capital outlay over a period of a few years if Airline Rates & Charges hadn’t already done so. Probably would have been a combination. One councilmember bowed to the pressure of a handful of angry/threatening constituents and flipped their vote, and then all but one of the remaining council members who would have voted to approve it weren’t willing to be THE one to push it over because the vote would have been 5-4 instead of 6-3. So it died. The vote to approve the Feasibility Study was 6-3, and it was going to be exactly the same vote to proceed, with all council members voting as they had originally.


The vote against the FIS was 8-1.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la- ... story.html

And actually, yes city money would be used to build it, and estimate $10-21mil diverted from other uses, with a hope that enough future passengers would use it to cover its operating cost, and eventually pay back the construction cost.

Frankly, good thing it did not get built if you look at the terrible results of FIS at SNA has been and the fact that the USCBP is incredibly understaffed and cant even support required staffing levels at other land/sea/air facilities within the Port District to staff a new facility.

airplaneboy wrote:
I’m not 100% certain as it’s been a few years since the new terminal opened- but I believe the funding to build the new terminal was provided entirely by the airport itself (passenger facility charges, etc.). I’m not aware of jetBlue providing funding for the current terminal.


Indeed the terminal upgrades were not funded by airlines. Actually, airlines appreciated the way the airport structured the capital improvements with resulted in a "free" facility from them as the article from the time explains.

https://www.aviationpros.com/airports/a ... est-of-old

Rodriguez notes that typically airport facilities are financed through bonds. This debt, much like a mortgage, is paid by the airlines. The airlines, in turn, pass this cost on to their customers. "We opted to be more businesslike and prudent," he says. "Our new improvements are self-funding, which means that the cost should not be passed on to our airlines and, by default, our customers.”
Airlines got involved from the beginning, knowing they were not obligated to fund the project. “When they heard ‘free,’ they got very interested,” and were themselves free with their ideas and help, adds Rodriguez.


The exact breakdown of funding was:

35% City cash
31% Future PFC revenue
22% Future concession revenue - parking, transportation company fees, rental car franchise cost, gross receipt tax
12% Federal grants (FAA, TSA, etc)


I know the vote was 8-1. Councilman Andrews was the lone remaining supporter. I said that after one of the council members flipped their vote, all but one (Andrews) of the remaining supporters bailed because they weren’t going to be the one vote which pushed it through. So, it went from what would have been 6-3 to no better than 5-4, and 4 of the 5 who were going to support it (until the one flipped) backed away to make it 8-1.

City money, in the way you are stating, is Airport revenue, including Reserves. So, again, no actual City General Fund $$$ would have gone towards the FIS project. There is a huge difference between Airport revenue and City General Fund $$$. Airport revenues must remain on site to cover its operating costs. LGB contributes to the City’s General Fund through an annual transfer in an amount agreed upon by the City and Airport which is to cover the City services provided (HR, Legal, Planning, Police, Fire, etc.). This is fairly standard practice among U.S. Airports. Airports do not take from the General Fund. Even LGB Airport’s (City) Employees are paid through Airport generated revenues, not the City’s General Fund.

There would have been a major difference between SNA’s failed FIS and the one proposed at LGB. That’s because there was a carrier @ LGB making a serious commitment to utilize it, and backing that up by providing the majority of the funding to construct it. Nothing like how the SNA project came to be. I agree that it could have been a challenge to staff it given how stretched CBP is.

AAflyguy
 
MKIAZ
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 5:24 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:16 am

WidebodyPTV wrote:
The area surrounding LGB has dramatically changed since the start of the Millennium. Places like Lakewood, Westminster and parts of Long Beach that were decaying... have been re-gentrified into thriving communities And places like Seal Beach, which were once working class communities housing many of the people working for McDonnell Douglas and related suppliers... are now uber wealthy. housing mostly high-income professionals. The communities changed. Long Beach is their community airport -- it isn't like people from Torrance or Tustin are going to use it. If they don't want the airport, or they want to limit its presence, that's their choice.


Yes. You do have a point. But most all of southern california has re-gentrified in the same way. Seal beach is tiny compared to many of the other OC beach cities.

There are millions of very wealthy people within an hour drive of LGB. That has never been the problem. The problem is for the vast vast majority of those people, there is a closer airport. Namely LAX and SNA. And LAX has the added draw of having a ton more options for flights. It's a perfect airport for WN to fly to LAS and the bay area. It never made a ton of sense for B6 flying to JFK.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:48 am

MKIAZ wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:
The area surrounding LGB has dramatically changed since the start of the Millennium. Places like Lakewood, Westminster and parts of Long Beach that were decaying... have been re-gentrified into thriving communities And places like Seal Beach, which were once working class communities housing many of the people working for McDonnell Douglas and related suppliers... are now uber wealthy. housing mostly high-income professionals. The communities changed. Long Beach is their community airport -- it isn't like people from Torrance or Tustin are going to use it. If they don't want the airport, or they want to limit its presence, that's their choice.


Yes. You do have a point. But most all of southern california has re-gentrified in the same way. Seal beach is tiny compared to many of the other OC beach cities.

There are millions of very wealthy people within an hour drive of LGB. That has never been the problem. The problem is for the vast vast majority of those people, there is a closer airport. Namely LAX and SNA. And LAX has the added draw of having a ton more options for flights. It's a perfect airport for WN to fly to LAS and the bay area. It never made a ton of sense for B6 flying to JFK.


I think you missed my point. LGB has always existed as a community airport, and is only going to pull from the local community. It was never intended to be a gateway into the Los Angeles area. The community surrounding LGB has dramatically changed in recent decades. If the (new) residents don't want the airport, or want to limit the airport's impact, that's their choice.

I spent many days of my life in the Newport Center. I'm fully aware of the nuisance the noise pollution generates, in spite of noise abatement procedures. I certainly don't blame anybody who wants to limit the impact of their regional airport.
 
11C
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:57 pm

WidebodyPTV wrote:
MKIAZ wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:
The area surrounding LGB has dramatically changed since the start of the Millennium. Places like Lakewood, Westminster and parts of Long Beach that were decaying... have been re-gentrified into thriving communities And places like Seal Beach, which were once working class communities housing many of the people working for McDonnell Douglas and related suppliers... are now uber wealthy. housing mostly high-income professionals. The communities changed. Long Beach is their community airport -- it isn't like people from Torrance or Tustin are going to use it. If they don't want the airport, or they want to limit its presence, that's their choice.


Yes. You do have a point. But most all of southern california has re-gentrified in the same way. Seal beach is tiny compared to many of the other OC beach cities.

There are millions of very wealthy people within an hour drive of LGB. That has never been the problem. The problem is for the vast vast majority of those people, there is a closer airport. Namely LAX and SNA. And LAX has the added draw of having a ton more options for flights. It's a perfect airport for WN to fly to LAS and the bay area. It never made a ton of sense for B6 flying to JFK.


I think you missed my point. LGB has always existed as a community airport, and is only going to pull from the local community. It was never intended to be a gateway into the Los Angeles area. The community surrounding LGB has dramatically changed in recent decades. If the (new) residents don't want the airport, or want to limit the airport's impact, that's their choice.

I spent many days of my life in the Newport Center. I'm fully aware of the nuisance the noise pollution generates, in spite of noise abatement procedures. I certainly don't blame anybody who wants to limit the impact of their regional airport.


Define ‘community airport.’ I’m not sure I understand your meaning. Southern California is able to provide demand for every airport currently operating, obviously less so at the outlying airports. I don’t see the situation getting any better with time. The ordinance gives the city control, to a degree, over noise. I don’t think that has anything to do with what the airlines that operate there choose to offer as far as destinations. You imply that if someone from New York visits Disneyland, and chooses to fly into LGB, that this is a misuse of the airport. That is a strange notion. Airports are a limited commodity, and they will be used as the market dictates, obviously within the legal framework of the ordinance. It is not unexpected that airlines will abuse the noise ordinance, and operate as they please. The curfew should have been a hard curfew from the start, but it wasn’t, so there you go. The gentrification argument seems to imply the LAX communities deserve the noise, but LGB communities don’t.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7116
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:52 pm

AAflyguy wrote:
Except that B6 was going to pay the lions share of the cost for the FIS. That was known by the City/Airport. It was no secret. And, due to how airports are funded, there would be NO General Fund $$$ going to it so in actuality no City $$$ would have been used. LGB would have established a “per head” fee for all international arriving passengers and that would have recovered the initial capital outlay over a period of a few years if Airline Rates & Charges hadn’t already done so. Probably would have been a combination. One councilmember bowed to the pressure of a handful of angry/threatening constituents and flipped their vote, and then all but one of the remaining council members who would have voted to approve it weren’t willing to be THE one to push it over because the vote would have been 5-4 instead of 6-3. So it died. The vote to approve the Feasibility Study was 6-3, and it was going to be exactly the same vote to proceed, with all council members voting as they had originally.


Here's the thing: One would expect that if B6 wanted the FIS to proceed, they'd be on their absolute best behavior leading up to the vote. But they weren't. They broke the curfew 384 times in 2016 -- on average, more than once per night. So if they seemed unable to be able to comply with the City's noise ordinance, why would they expect the City Council to expend political capital to build an FIS, in light of vocal anti-airport opposition?
 
11C
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: Long Beach (LGB) increasing number of air carrier slots

Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:33 pm

ScottB wrote:
AAflyguy wrote:
Except that B6 was going to pay the lions share of the cost for the FIS. That was known by the City/Airport. It was no secret. And, due to how airports are funded, there would be NO General Fund $$$ going to it so in actuality no City $$$ would have been used. LGB would have established a “per head” fee for all international arriving passengers and that would have recovered the initial capital outlay over a period of a few years if Airline Rates & Charges hadn’t already done so. Probably would have been a combination. One councilmember bowed to the pressure of a handful of angry/threatening constituents and flipped their vote, and then all but one of the remaining council members who would have voted to approve it weren’t willing to be THE one to push it over because the vote would have been 5-4 instead of 6-3. So it died. The vote to approve the Feasibility Study was 6-3, and it was going to be exactly the same vote to proceed, with all council members voting as they had originally.


Here's the thing: One would expect that if B6 wanted the FIS to proceed, they'd be on their absolute best behavior leading up to the vote. But they weren't. They broke the curfew 384 times in 2016 -- on average, more than once per night. So if they seemed unable to be able to comply with the City's noise ordinance, why would they expect the City Council to expend political capital to build an FIS, in light of vocal anti-airport opposition?

I agree with you there, although the FIS would have allowed better yielding day flying, where the curfew wouldn’t have been a player. I still think adults would have decided the FIS issue on its merits, not as a censure of B6. But that’s how it went down, and shame on B6 for not reading the tea leaves.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12

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