Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4758
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:01 am

Very nice they are waiving till October for slot useage already. Prevents some flying just for the sake of holding slots.

October is like seven lifetimes away for the aviation industry at this point. If it's not pushed back I wouldn't be surprised to see both Southwest and delta add LAS cause it's short and easy. Basically a placeholder that can't cost that much.

Hawaiian could always be creative to use the slot like lgb-san-hnl something low risk triangle routing if leisure is still not interested in Hawaii.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5210
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:15 am

B6 will probably be down to under 5 flights a day after this. WN and DL can have all that slots if they want. And I doubt HA is coming back to LGB after this. I'd be shocked if DL actually does 12 flights a day here next year. So WN can finally have their dream of getting like 30+ slots at LGB. Let's see how it works out for them.
 
ericm2031
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 am

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:06 am

Sort of related, I wonder if enough airlines will cut back at SNA to where WN can reclaim back a lot of slots they lost to other carriers. I'd expect SNA to get stay pretty impacted with zero or even reduced amount of Disney traffic for a very long time.
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 565
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:34 am

Somehow I don't see DL using 12 slots in the Covid world as it shrinks everywhere else. For WN its probably once in lifetime opportunity to cement itself at LGB, so I see higher probability they will make full use of the added slots.
I fly your boxes
 
User avatar
KLMatSJC
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:16 am

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 3:00 am

LAXintl wrote:
With B6 further drawdown of LGB ops, the City has reallocated the additional vacated 7 slots.

Southwest was awarded 3, Delta 3 and Hawaiian Air 1.

Due Convid-19 situation, the airport is waiving slot usage requirements till October 24, 2020.

City memo (pdf):
http://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/c ... ight-slots

New total air carrier slots holdings by airline:
AA - 3
B6 - 17
DL - 12
FX - 1
HA - 2
WN - 17
5X - 1

WN and B6 have the same number of slots. Wow, never thought I'd see that day.
A318/19/20/21/21N A332/3 A343/5 A388 B712 B722 B732/3/4/7/8/9/9ER B744/4M B752/3 B762ER/3/3ER/4ER B772/E/L/W B788 CRJ2/7/9 Q400 EMB-120 ERJ-135/140/145/145XR/175 DC-10-10 MD-82/83/88/90

Long Live the Tulip, Cactus, and Redwood
 
CaptainObvious1
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:22 pm

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:19 am

This is not an airport with entrenching in at this time. By the end of the year there will be open slots at LGB for anyone to get. LAX, SNA and BUR is where the dollars are in the basin and they will protect those locations over LGB.

Captain Obvious.
 
Abeam79
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:16 am

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:32 am

Let me see, in a time where nothing is making money and everyone is bleeding cash, B6 just got rid of more routes out of an airport notoriously known for no one ever making money,especially now and WN just came in and swooped up slots in a money pit airport where they were already bleeding money on the flights they had already...sounds like B6 is the big winner here! I been hearing they rather make their move into LAX once they get the planes back from being parked with more available gates that will come. Good riddance LGB.
 
Newark727
Posts: 2029
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:52 am

I'm not sure I understand why people are so happy to cheer the demise of jetBlue's LGB operation. It's the airport with probably the best passenger experience in 50 miles, and jetBlue could get you across the country or up to San Francisco from there - it was a very convenient way to travel, and I'd do all my flying from there if the option was available. Not that anyone's doing much traveling right now, but...
 
BeachBoy
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:05 am

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:28 am

I wonder what HA planned to do with their 2nd slot.
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3472
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:32 am

BeachBoy wrote:
I wonder what HA planned to do with their 2nd slot.


I assume OGG.
 
Abeam79
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:16 am

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:33 am

Newark727 wrote:
I'm not sure I understand why people are so happy to cheer the demise of jetBlue's LGB operation. It's the airport with probably the best passenger experience in 50 miles, and jetBlue could get you across the country or up to San Francisco from there - it was a very convenient way to travel, and I'd do all my flying from there if the option was available. Not that anyone's doing much traveling right now, but...


I don't think people are "cheering the demise of B6 in LGB" its a smart move for a company that has been successful on making moves that position it better for growth in the right markets. If anything people are cheering about how a poorly run airport by a city council is getting a good business partner to say thank you were done here. B6 has bent over backwards to the city of long beach and tried to work with them to update archaic rules that don't fit the parameters of modern operations, and they instead worked against them. Which is counterproductive as a business standpoint. They can build all the nice facility they want, in the end if you do your history there was never an airline that continued to thrive and grow at LGB, every airline has always came in, maintained a level of service then pulled out because the city has never gotten their heads out of the sand and cultivate an airport with the right way to make it worth it for an airline to be successful. WN has deep pocket but we'll see how they are willing to maintain this build it up at LGB with demand down 90% and already loss making flights, all I can say is Good luck. Maybe one day Long Beach City Council will realize if they truly want to have a commercial airport, then make it one and stop trying make it difficult for anyone to thrive there.
 
Lootess
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:38 am

Abeam79 wrote:
Newark727 wrote:
I'm not sure I understand why people are so happy to cheer the demise of jetBlue's LGB operation. It's the airport with probably the best passenger experience in 50 miles, and jetBlue could get you across the country or up to San Francisco from there - it was a very convenient way to travel, and I'd do all my flying from there if the option was available. Not that anyone's doing much traveling right now, but...


I don't think people are "cheering the demise of B6 in LGB" its a smart move for a company that has been successful on making moves that position it better for growth in the right markets. If anything people are cheering about how a poorly run airport by a city council is getting a good business partner to say thank you were done here. B6 has bent over backwards to the city of long beach and tried to work with them to update archaic rules that don't fit the parameters of modern operations, and they instead worked against them. Which is counterproductive as a business standpoint. They can build all the nice facility they want, in the end if you do your history there was never an airline that continued to thrive and grow at LGB, every airline has always came in, maintained a level of service then pulled out because the city has never gotten their heads out of the sand and cultivate an airport with the right way to make it worth it for an airline to be successful. WN has deep pocket but we'll see how they are willing to maintain this build it up at LGB with demand down 90% and already loss making flights, all I can say is Good luck. Maybe one day Long Beach City Council will realize if they truly want to have a commercial airport, then make it one and stop trying make it difficult for anyone to thrive there.


lol, WN has deep pockets. Um no, not for long. Involuntarily furloughs are actually on the table this fall according to Gary Kelly.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5957
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:12 am

They can waive their slot rules all they want… Their airport is going to be a ghost town

Now, had they stuck it out with B6, They would’ve had a medium sized airline that placed a large importance on LGB as they began to rebuild and recover.


Instead, they will be fighting for flights to hubs and the hope that a smaller WN sticks around.

Bad place to be LGB...and frankly, your own stupidity got you here
 
tphuang
Posts: 5210
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:25 am

UPlog wrote:
Somehow I don't see DL using 12 slots in the Covid world as it shrinks everywhere else. For WN its probably once in lifetime opportunity to cement itself at LGB, so I see higher probability they will make full use of the added slots.


"once in a lifetime opportunity" - lol, this is not something I could ever have imagined someone say about LGB.

Lootess wrote:
Abeam79 wrote:
Newark727 wrote:
I'm not sure I understand why people are so happy to cheer the demise of jetBlue's LGB operation. It's the airport with probably the best passenger experience in 50 miles, and jetBlue could get you across the country or up to San Francisco from there - it was a very convenient way to travel, and I'd do all my flying from there if the option was available. Not that anyone's doing much traveling right now, but...


I don't think people are "cheering the demise of B6 in LGB" its a smart move for a company that has been successful on making moves that position it better for growth in the right markets. If anything people are cheering about how a poorly run airport by a city council is getting a good business partner to say thank you were done here. B6 has bent over backwards to the city of long beach and tried to work with them to update archaic rules that don't fit the parameters of modern operations, and they instead worked against them. Which is counterproductive as a business standpoint. They can build all the nice facility they want, in the end if you do your history there was never an airline that continued to thrive and grow at LGB, every airline has always came in, maintained a level of service then pulled out because the city has never gotten their heads out of the sand and cultivate an airport with the right way to make it worth it for an airline to be successful. WN has deep pocket but we'll see how they are willing to maintain this build it up at LGB with demand down 90% and already loss making flights, all I can say is Good luck. Maybe one day Long Beach City Council will realize if they truly want to have a commercial airport, then make it one and stop trying make it difficult for anyone to thrive there.


lol, WN has deep pockets. Um no, not for long. Involuntarily furloughs are actually on the table this fall according to Gary Kelly.

Right, WN will get smaller like everyone else even with that deep pocket.

My guess after this.
B6 down to 1x JFK/BOS/SEA/LAS/SLC at most
WN down to 4x OAK/SMF and 1x DEN
DL down to 4x SLC
HA/AA are gone
Have a great time LGB.
 
carljanderson
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:29 pm

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:49 pm

LAXintl wrote:
With B6 further drawdown of LGB ops, the City has reallocated the additional vacated 7 slots.

Southwest was awarded 3, Delta 3 and Hawaiian Air 1.

Due Convid-19 situation, the airport is waiving slot usage requirements till October 24, 2020.



I think the city should waive the slot usage requirements until the 31 March 2021 at the earliest. Give the airlines and airport (hopefully) the fall and winter to evaluate demand just to see where things sit then. There is no way DL is using 12 slots by October 24.
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 565
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:50 pm

Couple news stories with quotes from airlines.

Hawaiian:
"We will evaluate our service resumption at LGB when Hawai‘i is ready to welcome travelers again.”

Delta:
"We continue to evaluate our network as we make decisions on our service at Long Beach Airport.”


Southwest now tied with JetBlue for most slots at Long Beach Airport; Delta, Hawaiian expand
https://www.presstelegram.com/2020/04/2 ... an-expand/

JetBlue is no longer the largest carrier at LGB as Southwest picks up more flights
https://lbpost.com/news/jetblue-is-no-l ... re-flights
I fly your boxes
 
wnflyguy
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

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

Wed Apr 29, 2020 10:13 pm

I don't see DL using these slots now in a Post pandemic fallout environment..
Pre Pandemic DL had been rumored to add 2 SEA and 1 ATL red eye.
Hawaiian was said to be on the defensive with the possibility of WN adding LGB as it's LA gateway to Hawaii if enough slots could be gained. The Talk around LGB had HA retiming LGB-HNL service to a evening flight.
HNL-LGB was being turned into a Red Eye return.
The 2nd flights was a morning Day turn to LGB-OGG Sun,Mon,Wen and Fri. LGB-KOA Tue,Thur and Sat.

WN adding 2 daily LAS and 1 Daily DEN.

But unless things turn around by October I don't see WN being as ambitious with LGB until the economy recovers.

Flyguy
My Wings are clipped just another Retired Airline person. The Ultimate Armchair out of the loop airline industry geek. Aloha Mr Hand!
 
jplatts
Posts: 3613
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

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

Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:32 am

ericm2031 wrote:
Sort of related, I wonder if enough airlines will cut back at SNA to where WN can reclaim back a lot of slots they lost to other carriers. I'd expect SNA to get stay pretty impacted with zero or even reduced amount of Disney traffic for a very long time.


The limits on the number of average daily departures at SNA increases to 95 daily departures from 85 daily departures starting on January 1, 2021, and the limits on the number of annual passengers at SNA increases to 11.8 million annual passengers from 10.8 million annual passengers starting in 2021.

I agree that WN will likely be able to acquire extra slots at SNA in 2021, either with other airlines cutting service at SNA or with extra slots that will become available at SNA starting on January 1, 2021 in connection with the increases in the limit of average daily departures and annual passengers at SNA that go into effect starting on January 1, 2021.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5210
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

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

Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:09 am

So if industry wide capacity is going to be down in 2021 + WN can get additional slots at SNA and probably additional gates at LAX. What's the rationale for keeping LGB around losing money every day? LGB will be down to 20 flights a day among the scheduled carriers before you know it.
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4758
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

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

Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:03 am

Seriously October is anyone's guess at this point. I am gonna try to make a prediction now that i had some time to think on this one:

I could seriously see all 3 airlines appealing for more time and saying this is so unprecedented they cant start new service in October. Delta loves to submit exceptions for everything, this seems like an actual legitimate crises that an extension is valid. My guess is the airlines all ask for extensions after Delta does and they get it approved. They chased B6 out of town thru years of not valuing them at all , i don't think they want to see the new airlines ditch the slots. The airlines hold the winning cards at this time

Long Beach had so much potential for B6 and you can't say they didn't try, it was a few city council members who just thought B6 had to pay thru the nose for the "privilege" to have a hub there. There was zero give and all take. It was all take and you owe US by a few very misinformed city council members over the years. People who would support income re-distribution in crazy extremes. B6 did so much for Long Beach for such a long time i cant remember seeing a local event without JetBlue as a leading sponsor. Really a shame they tried so hard to make Long Beach work. On paper it was perfect

Long term for Long Beach and B6 i could see JetBlue serving SLC maybe 2-3x daily as the only remaining service with one stop service to JFK and BOS maybe. Those three routes have some really loyal flyers who love the airport. It allows B6 to stay in the market and support its loyal flyers with minimal investment and the rest can move to LAX.

If SNA slots open expect to see B6 try to get in there. OC to BOS i think is a real opportunity route and JFK would really be nice to see. Would have to be A220 routes. Those Long Beach routes could shift over and they keep SLC as the last remaining link for the loyal flyers in Long Beach. Basically shifting everything out of Long Beach to LAX and SNA sans a token for loyal flyers (SLC)

LAS is a major market for B6 out of Long Beach but those flyers will easily shift to Southwest.
 
MDGLongBeach
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:03 pm

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

Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:20 am

So at this point there's no chance for any recovery for LGB? Mostly assuming because of NIMBY's and councilmen? I would've thought that B6 keep LGB for transcon, and a few a day LAS/SLC regardless of COVID or not. Could we see any other airlines trying to make a run here in the long run? (especially with Deltas recent addition of slots?)
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4758
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

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

Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:01 am

MDGLongBeach wrote:
So at this point there's no chance for any recovery for LGB? Mostly assuming because of NIMBY's and councilmen? I would've thought that B6 keep LGB for transcon, and a few a day LAS/SLC regardless of COVID or not. Could we see any other airlines trying to make a run here in the long run? (especially with Deltas recent addition of slots?)


Right now almost anything is possible. Airlines are going thru massive changes. Everyone is guessing here.

Southwest could still move full steam ahead and want every slot they can get. That is the best case scenario for the airport.


Moxi or Frontier might move in if Southwest leaves Long Beach and a good amount of slots open then Frontier might become really interested in making that their so cal airport.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5210
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

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

Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:03 pm

Airlines are going to consolidate around major hubs and reduce their presence at secondary airports coming out of this. 2021 and 2022 will be very slow years at LGB.

At this point, what was profitable for B6 before COVID (JFK/BOS/SEA/SLC/RNO/PDX) may not be profitable afterward. I fully anticipate them to consolidate BOS to LA market to LAX. JFK-ONT is probably going to not stick around. BUR will be down to 2x JFK at most. JFK-LGB will probably be down to 1x daily. Maybe they will continue 2x to SLC and 1x SEA, but not much more than that.

DL is not going to be operating more than LGB-SLC after this. If anything, there is a chance DL will leave LGB entirely. LGB was far and away their worst performing LA area airport to SLC.

Does HA really need to have additional capacity to LGB when capacity to LA basin is already going to be down? I would think they consolidate their operation at LAX to fill those widebodies.

Does AA stick around? My guess is no. LGB was their worst performing airport to PHX.

I never understood WN's fascination with LGB. And now, LAX/SNA constraints should be opening up. The main reason for expanding at LGB is gone. I'd imagine OAK/SMF/DEN is the only services sticking around.

As for frontier, they just completely cut off LAX/ONT. I don't see any reason for them to try LGB.

Breeze at this moment is so far away from trying anything.
 
Flflyer83
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 4:40 pm

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

Fri May 01, 2020 2:53 am

tphuang wrote:
I never understood WN's fascination with LGB. And now, LAX/SNA constraints should be opening up. The main reason for expanding at LGB is gone. I'd imagine OAK/SMF/DEN is the only services sticking around.


It’s more about “owning” California and less about LGB in particular.
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4758
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

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

Sat May 02, 2020 7:00 am

Long Beach has put themselves in a very tough position. Such a shame as it's an amazing airport .


They can maybe save pride and push the slot exemptions out longer. I doubt anyone wants more slots so pushing them out if no one wants more really doesn't hurt. From a PR standpoint looks better to blame this all on the virus.

I do think the airport would be in a much stronger position with B6 if they had actually worked with them and not tried to shake them down. Long Beach could be there west coast recovery focus here very soon ,but instead they are more likely to slash even more soon.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5957
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

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

Sat May 02, 2020 10:30 am

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
Long Beach has put themselves in a very tough position. Such a shame as it's an amazing airport .


They can maybe save pride and push the slot exemptions out longer. I doubt anyone wants more slots so pushing them out if no one wants more really doesn't hurt. From a PR standpoint looks better to blame this all on the virus.

I do think the airport would be in a much stronger position with B6 if they had actually worked with them and not tried to shake them down. Long Beach could be there west coast recovery focus here very soon ,but instead they are more likely to slash even more soon.



You are 100% correct
 
tphuang
Posts: 5210
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

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

Sat May 02, 2020 1:45 pm

At this point, even if WN reduced itself to like 6 flights a day and DL down to 3x daily, I don't see anyway B6 tries to build up LGB again.

This is once a decade opportunity for B6 to get more gates at LAX. F9 cut LAX completely. SY is probably gone. G4 is most likely gone or down to 2 or 3 flights a day and HA is moving to MSC. There is going to be a lot more real estate available in LAX up for grabs. You can bet that B6, WN and NK are all eyeing more gates as this is happening.

In the short term, their size in LGB will be dependent on what WN and DL do. If WN wants to add more LAS flights, no reason for B6 to stick around there. If DL decides to leave completely, B6 can stick around on SLC. I don't see SFO, RNO or AUS sticking around.
 
ytib
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:22 am

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

Sat May 02, 2020 5:49 pm

tphuang wrote:
This is once a decade opportunity for B6 to get more gates at LAX.


What would JetBlue do with all these new gates at LAX?
318, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 388, 707, 717, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73Q, 735, 73G, 738, 7M8, 739, 752, 753, 742, 74L, 744, 762, 763, 772, 77L, 77W, 789, 142, CN1, CR2, CR7, DC8, DH2, DH8, D8Q, D10, D95, EM2, ER3, ER4, E70, 100, J31, M11, M83, M88, M90, SF3
 
WN732
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:49 am

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

Sat May 02, 2020 7:59 pm

ytib wrote:
tphuang wrote:
This is once a decade opportunity for B6 to get more gates at LAX.


What would JetBlue do with all these new gates at LAX?


Squat on them at the very least. Gates are just like real estate, buy low and work em high.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5210
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

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

Sat May 02, 2020 10:36 pm

ytib wrote:
tphuang wrote:
This is once a decade opportunity for B6 to get more gates at LAX.


What would JetBlue do with all these new gates at LAX?


If you just move all of their LGB operation to LAX and add a few transcons, that's already over 40 flights.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 12:13 am

jfklganyc wrote:
Now, had they stuck it out with B6, They would’ve had a medium sized airline that placed a large importance on LGB as they began to rebuild and recover.


Um, nope. LGB's post-Covid-19 situation with B6 would be the same regardless of whether they had "stuck it out with B6." Does anyone realistically think B6 would be flying a bunch of empty flights to Mexico right now even with an FIS at LGB? Does anyone realistically think they would maintain a focus city at LGB -- even with good relations with the City Council -- if a half-dozen gates at LAX were to become available? Let's be real. B6 would jump on a sudden opportunity at LAX if it were to become available, and they'd fund the flying from their resources at LGB. Period, end of story.

tphuang wrote:
In the short term, their size in LGB will be dependent on what WN and DL do.


I think B6's operation at LGB will be dependent on what facilities become available at LAX and the general financial condition of the carrier. The only situation which, IMO, sees them remaining at LGB will be a relatively rapid return of traffic coupled with a lack of ability to pick up additional gates at LAX (which would come with that rapid return of traffic for all carriers).

tphuang wrote:
I never understood WN's fascination with LGB. And now, LAX/SNA constraints should be opening up. The main reason for expanding at LGB is gone. I'd imagine OAK/SMF/DEN is the only services sticking around.


WN was losing slots at SNA and constrained in its ability to grow at LAX. LGB allowed them to pick up traffic share in the L.A. Basin as well as offer more comprehensive coverage of the region. I think they also went in to squeeze B6. B6 had been underutilizing its slots for years and the airport let them do it because no one had expressed interest in additional slots. The supplemental allocation several years back allowed WN to come in with competitively-timed service to OAK and it forced B6 to use the slots it had been squatting on. Unsurprisingly, the B6 expansion was unprofitable so they shrank again and eventually returned several slots. And the squeeze was successful as well as B6 exited the market between Southern California and airports like OAK, SJC, and SMF.

Abeam79 wrote:
B6 has bent over backwards to the city of long beach and tried to work with them to update archaic rules that don't fit the parameters of modern operations, and they instead worked against them.


Really. Breaking the curfew several hundred times a year is bending over backwards? Squatting on slots is bending over backwards?
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5957
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

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

Sun May 03, 2020 2:12 am

ScottB wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Now, had they stuck it out with B6, They would’ve had a medium sized airline that placed a large importance on LGB as they began to rebuild and recover.


Um, nope. LGB's post-Covid-19 situation with B6 would be the same regardless of whether they had "stuck it out with B6." Does anyone realistically think B6 would be flying a bunch of empty flights to Mexico right now even with an FIS at LGB? Does anyone realistically think they would maintain a focus city at LGB -- even with good relations with the City Council -- if a half-dozen gates at LAX were to become available? Let's be real. B6 would jump on a sudden opportunity at LAX if it were to become available, and they'd fund the flying from their resources at LGB. Period, end of story.

tphuang wrote:
In the short term, their size in LGB will be dependent on what WN and DL do.


I think B6's operation at LGB will be dependent on what facilities become available at LAX and the general financial condition of the carrier. The only situation which, IMO, sees them remaining at LGB will be a relatively rapid return of traffic coupled with a lack of ability to pick up additional gates at LAX (which would come with that rapid return of traffic for all carriers).

tphuang wrote:
I never understood WN's fascination with LGB. And now, LAX/SNA constraints should be opening up. The main reason for expanding at LGB is gone. I'd imagine OAK/SMF/DEN is the only services sticking around.


WN was losing slots at SNA and constrained in its ability to grow at LAX. LGB allowed them to pick up traffic share in the L.A. Basin as well as offer more comprehensive coverage of the region. I think they also went in to squeeze B6. B6 had been underutilizing its slots for years and the airport let them do it because no one had expressed interest in additional slots. The supplemental allocation several years back allowed WN to come in with competitively-timed service to OAK and it forced B6 to use the slots it had been squatting on. Unsurprisingly, the B6 expansion was unprofitable so they shrank again and eventually returned several slots. And the squeeze was successful as well as B6 exited the market between Southern California and airports like OAK, SJC, and SMF.

Abeam79 wrote:
B6 has bent over backwards to the city of long beach and tried to work with them to update archaic rules that don't fit the parameters of modern operations, and they instead worked against them.


Really. Breaking the curfew several hundred times a year is bending over backwards? Squatting on slots is bending over backwards?


You sound defensive

Prepare for a beautiful, empty terminal.
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4758
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 5:00 am

The problem for long Beach right now is delta nor southwest cares that much nor do they really need long Beach. We could see a really empty airport here and I do think it might have happened even without Corona virus.

AA always looks shaky to PHX and that's been true for a long long time. For the last 5 years I've been expecting that to end

Southwest it just wasn't working out too well. Nothing from long Beach has been a hit , and alot has been pretty terrible. Alot of very light flights

Delta only wanted slots to run JetBlue out of SLC route and because southwest wanted slots. Delta would have always struggled with this many slots. Their recent Las flights were duds

The airport needed JetBlue if they wanted a stable reliable airline. JetBlue needed them too and tried for a long time to make it work.
JetBlue has no west coast hub and the focus on the west coast should have been long beach. JetBlue tried hard to get that place to work and faced continuing no help from the city. They stuck around longer and tried harder than I think anyone else would have. JetBlue was the chance for a stable airline who would be dependable, now it's just a huge gamble. A few city council members were convinced any airline would take slots and way over estimated the value and never appreciated B6 contributions to the community and economy. Hope they are keeping up to date on events from their retirement cause the unthinkable might happen. Their gamble may have been a huge loser. I think Carona accelerated alot of this , but this was the collision course long beach might have been on anyway. Their future rests in Southwest hands and I'm not sure how that's gonna work out they don't need long Beach that much
 
CaptainObvious1
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:22 pm

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

Sun May 03, 2020 3:11 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Prepare for a beautiful, empty terminal.


That could provide opportunities for LGB to get some additional revenue. Closing off part of the facility and renting out space to use for filming (commercials, movies, etc) just as ONT has done.
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1114
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

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

Sun May 03, 2020 3:26 pm

Its absolute nonsense and company PR talking point to believe and repeat the idea that somehow B6 was angelic in its dealing with City of Long Beach.

B6 proved itself very clearly by chalking up hundreds of violations of established operating regulations at the airport year after year. Would it have cared to be a good neighbor and tenant it would have ensured it operated within the rules that were already in place in 2001 when it first showed up at the airport.

B6 needs to fix its own house before casting stones at LGB which merely sought to ensure B6 maintained its end of the contractual operating agreement they agreed to.
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3660
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

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

Sun May 03, 2020 4:38 pm

The only people saying B6 is “casting stones” at LGB are the a.net people it seems because they’ve said no such thing that I can tell
“They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.”
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 565
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 5:02 pm

There is no denying the fact that Jetblue ran an appalling operation that repeatedly busted curfew and put itself in the crosshairs of the authorities and community.

Jetblue has itself to blame for the strained relations, not the airport that merely sought to enforce regulations that had been on the books for ages.

As to the future lets see what happens. Pretty clear there will be seismic changes in the industry in the near term that will affect all airports. Even if Jetblue was at full slot strength at LGB, these events likely would have it shrink anyhow since the carrier is one of the weaker ones financially in the industry and its performance at LGB has long been iffy.
I fly your boxes
 
WingedVictory
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:22 pm

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

Sun May 03, 2020 6:43 pm

LGB Airport will be broken by the full weight of the COVID-19 economic impacts (yes plural). As has been already stated, air carriers will withdraw into the primary airports of large metro airports all over the country. The pending major fleet reductions at the Big 3 carriers will be significant and long-term in duration, leaving new gate access for those remaining air carriers (like WN & B6) with relatively strong liquidity and nil international city-pair exposure to jump on an unexpected gold mine of new gates at LAX, Those of you who think B6 deserved to be treated by the LGB CC in the manner they did fail to understand the strategic benefit that B6 gave not only itself, but to the City of Long Beach from their initial agreement almost 20 years ago. Yet despite that promise, smaller minds and political agendas blew up the latent potential of a far greater return for both parties.
 
MDGLongBeach
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:03 pm

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

Sun May 03, 2020 8:34 pm

janders wrote:
Its absolute nonsense and company PR talking point to believe and repeat the idea that somehow B6 was angelic in its dealing with City of Long Beach.

B6 proved itself very clearly by chalking up hundreds of violations of established operating regulations at the airport year after year. Would it have cared to be a good neighbor and tenant it would have ensured it operated within the rules that were already in place in 2001 when it first showed up at the airport.

B6 needs to fix its own house before casting stones at LGB which merely sought to ensure B6 maintained its end of the contractual operating agreement they agreed to.


You bring up a really good point here. The community was already on hinges about the airport's existence in the first place and B6 didn't really gain much popularity by breaking the curfew rules (which are very similar to that of SNA's fyi). JetBlue knew from the beginning it would have to work hard to prove its "community friendliness", hence why it was discussed earlier in this thread that they were very active with airport events/activities. But, they broke the number *1* rule here in flying past the 10pm curfew and pissing off those who live under the approach path, hence why the community has little sympathy for the airline, and for their ever growing hatred of the airport as well.

Personally, I loved JetBlue and if they had played themselves off a little differently with those who didn't love them so much, they may have had a better standing here at the airport. Especially back in the early 2010s when they had non-stop shop service to IAD/ORD/FLL (and heck even ANC in the summer). Those days are unfortunately long gone and now we'll probably see an LGB with 10 flights a day in the coming years. I guess Corona is a good test run and eye-opener for the airport to get an early visual at what to expect when B6 completely leaves.

So getting off of personal opinions here, seemingly B6's plan at LGB was to pull something like AAY does at IWA and SFB. Pull people in with cheap fares in an area of high demand at a secondary airport. In theory, it can work as we see not only with AAY but even SWA as well (MDW). Personally, I can't point the finger for why LGB has low LF considering it's unique experience and convenience, maybe it was in fact a bust from the very beginning having been lodged between SNA and LAX. Though, I have a feeling that the airport could've done a better job advertising its existence here and promoting the convenience over the overall utter chaos at LAX and the dense traffic on the 405 to SNA. All I can say as a supporter of the airport, "oh well".

Someone earlier said that regardless of COVID, B6 would've taken the opportunity to LAX nonetheless, and I say that's wrong. B6's investments into the airport and obvious attempt to make it a long-lasting focus city proved that this was their goal for SoCal operations. If LGB would've been a hit, they would've more or less monopolized the airport, saved a few bucks in landing fees and gate costs at LAX, and have a lot more political influence over the airport here than at LAX. I'd just find it hard to believe that they used LGB as a bluff for the opportunity to get LAX slottage considering the sheer amount of time and resources put into the airport. Plus (I wasn't really informed at the time), but wouldn't they have had the opportunity to obtain dropped slots at LAX post-2008 financial crisis if that was their plan?

As a local resident i'm worried for the future of the airport as everyone else here is speculating. When/If B6 does leave here, there's no justification for other airlines to have large-scale operations here like SWA was speculated of doing considering the long history of flops and low LF. It would really *suck* if all airlines here downscaled operations to the main staple airports on the west-coast only as having service to AUS/RNO/JFK and beyond was always a nice commodity of the airport. My semi-realistic hope would be that SWA retains most of its operations here, that DAL keeps SLC, AA keeps PHX (though at a reduced rate), and HAL continue 1x HNL. Obviously in a perfect world, SWA taking over LGB in place of B6 would be best-case-scenario but I think we all know that shots been long gone.

As a side-note, while not officiated, there was a surface-level small talk rumor that G4 was looking into LGB again (BOI and LAS at the start). Having already mentioned the above circumstances about AAY's love affair with high demand areas and secondary-level airports, and that they won't retain LAX slots, is this their time to shine and attempt a LGB run once again? This may sound stupid and be a long-dried up talk, but considering this is their primary target of airport and that they establish themselves universally on these types of airports, could they try to make LGB into something? Especially with B6's long-expected departure and the downsizing of the rest of the operation here. Possibly they could win the community with low fares, and an attempt at being a good neighbor? In terms of the airport, maybe make a plan about guaranteeing a certain level of service in exchange for having to bypass some of the slot utilizations to fit AAY's weird route frequencies?

It's all chaos right now here at LGB and globally. In terms of what could've been with B6 and LGB, RIP to the dream.

-MDG(LGB)
 
ScottB
Posts: 6993
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 8:41 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
You sound defensive

Prepare for a beautiful, empty terminal.


Nope. Never even been there. Fact is that this black swan event will play out the same way regardless of whether B6 had gotten everything on its wish list from the city. If B6 had been allowed to squat on its slots, if the city had built the FIS, if they hadn't enforced the curfew violations, B6 would still move the operation to LAX if they could get a half dozen gates due to other carriers reducing service there. We'd even get the same statement in a press release: "We'd like to thank our partners at the City of Long Beach but our focus city there has long been unprofitable/underperforming and we owe it to our stakeholders to redeploy our resources to areas of our network which can be more successful for us."
 
tphuang
Posts: 5210
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

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

Sun May 03, 2020 8:47 pm

LGB, due to its location and slot restrictions, is one where no prospective airline could make money. They found themselves a prime tenant in JetBlue that had its own issues but were willing to stick around for years to provide wide range of service on limited slots that no other secondary LA Basin airport had. It's clear that during boom time when every airline have been looking to expand, LGB simply overestimated the value of its real estate and underestimated the value of having an airline dedicating most of its west coast strategy around the airport. LGB is kind of like ISP for WN back in the days. Neither airports are really attractive but just happened to attract a major airline with little presence in the area. If you are an airport with such a lackluster effort of attracting airlines, you can't be picky with what you get.

This could've been a marriage convenience that lasted a lot longer. But the bridge was burnt a few years ago and LGB will be left with a nice empty airport that all the NIMBYs have been hoping for.

Given how long JetBlue stuck around at LGB through periods like the great recession to build its brand in the area, it's quite presumptuous to just assume it would've left after COVID.

UPlog wrote:
There is no denying the fact that Jetblue ran an appalling operation that repeatedly busted curfew and put itself in the crosshairs of the authorities and community.

Jetblue has itself to blame for the strained relations, not the airport that merely sought to enforce regulations that had been on the books for ages.

As to the future lets see what happens. Pretty clear there will be seismic changes in the industry in the near term that will affect all airports. Even if Jetblue was at full slot strength at LGB, these events likely would have it shrink anyhow since the carrier is one of the weaker ones financially in the industry and its performance at LGB has long been iffy.


The issues were FIS, not the fines. If LGB was actually willing to build FIS, I'm sure JetBlue would've been willing to work with LGB to reduce the curfews. The vast complaint that LGB made to JetBlue only really picked up in 2017 after FIS went poof. That was when the relationship broke. After which, JetBlue made no effort to be a good participant. Frankly, if there was commitment from both said, this could've worked out a lot better.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24620
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

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

Sun May 03, 2020 8:55 pm

Jetblue landing a bunch of LAX gates and squatting on them is rather unlikely. Unless B6 will take and entire terminal under a multi-decade master lease, grabbing a couple of random gates will come with strict use it or lose strings. Even is LAWA waives its utilization requirements, it would also benefit other airlines that are also looking for more space - HA, AC, AS, NK off the top of my mind.

And yes, the way I see it, it was JetBlue that burned its bridges in LGB with its inability to operate within the noise ordinance and constantly bringing negative attention upon itself.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
MDGLongBeach
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:03 pm

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

Wed May 06, 2020 3:14 am

I've been checking route changes and it appears American is downsizing the PHX route from CRJ9's to CRJ7's and that SkyWest will take over the frequencies instead of Mesa (Effective May 8th). CRJ7's are showing for LGB-PHX through July but upon further investigation, around September is when the CRJ9s will supposedly return to the route. I think its also important to mention that LGB's 30 is closing this Friday temporarily for some work to be done so all commercial aircraft will be landing 26R. Lastly, does anyone know why we've been getting more SWA 738's lately? Normally on a pre-COVID day, we would get one every couple days or so. Is it to make up for lost frequency?

-MDG
 
wnflyguy
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

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

Wed May 06, 2020 3:28 am

MDGLongBeach wrote:
I've been checking route changes and it appears American is downsizing the PHX route from CRJ9's to CRJ7's and that SkyWest will take over the frequencies instead of Mesa (Effective May 8th). CRJ7's are showing for LGB-PHX through July but upon further investigation, around September is when the CRJ9s will supposedly return to the route. I think its also important to mention that LGB's 30 is closing this Friday temporarily for some work to be done so all commercial aircraft will be landing 26R. Lastly, does anyone know why we've been getting more SWA 738's lately? Normally on a pre-COVID day, we would get one every couple days or so. Is it to make up for lost frequency?

-MDG

WN parked 400 7377NG so a lot of schedules in California are 800's.

Flyguy
My Wings are clipped just another Retired Airline person. The Ultimate Armchair out of the loop airline industry geek. Aloha Mr Hand!
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4758
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

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

Wed May 06, 2020 4:49 am

Doesn't long beach set its own rules? Couldnt they have set the airport with no landings after a certain time? Instead they set the rules that after a certain time you can land but pay a fee. JetBlue has paid the fees when late. BOS and JFK are just so delay prone it's not like the west coast with weather.

JetBlue tried everything and more to make long beach work and has added alot to the long Beach economy. Heck the area around the airport would be a financial wreck if JetBlue hadn't been there supporting them in trailers (literally). They had a focus city out of a trailer for years , offered a comfortable on board product, reliable service to the community out of maybe the toughest terminal in America. It was a few NIMBYs in the community not the average person who disliked JetBlue. JetBlue had a great image and people still hold JetBlue as a great airline and one I think most what to fly on in long Beach . If you stopped your first hipster walking on 2nd Street what their preferred airline was I bet you it would be jet blue
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1115
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

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

Wed May 06, 2020 7:18 am

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
Doesn't long beach set its own rules? Couldnt they have set the airport with no landings after a certain time?

Curfews are now illegal, but existing ones were grandfathered in . There is some debate on whether LGB could strengthen its curfew to a hard curfew (like SNA) and not run afoul of the law or Congress (presumably via airline lobbyists).

JetBlue busted the curfew (after the 1 hour grace period) 160+ times in one year and 31 times in one month.

Not sure LGB is upset with reduced service. The City and NIMBYs certainly seem they would rather shut it down than suffer through late night flights.
 
WNagent310
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:11 am

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

Wed May 06, 2020 11:14 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Jetblue landing a bunch of LAX gates and squatting on them is rather unlikely. Unless B6 will take and entire terminal under a multi-decade master lease, grabbing a couple of random gates will come with strict use it or lose strings. Even is LAWA waives its utilization requirements, it would also benefit other airlines that are also looking for more space - HA, AC, AS, NK off the top of my mind.

And yes, the way I see it, it was JetBlue that burned its bridges in LGB with its inability to operate within the noise ordinance and constantly bringing negative attention upon itself.


Anyone looking to take advantage of open gate space at LAX right now is a pipe dream. Airlines are all in their own fight for survival. Once business and demand pickes up then they can determine how to proceed.

At LAX, WN and LAWA have agreed to renegotiate gate leases and agreed to permanently shut down gates 9 and the not-finished 12A for the near future. Terminal 1.5 construction is still going on but slowly and both WN and DL have ceeded to find the airside connectors between T1 and T2. There will be a wall separating T1 and T2 for the forseeable future until both parties agree and pay for the construction.
 
lgblbc
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:52 am

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

Fri May 08, 2020 7:58 pm

DL just announced suspension of service to LGB until at least September. Hard to see them getting up to 12 flights anytime soon.
 
Desertkid
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun May 03, 2020 12:56 am

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

Fri May 08, 2020 8:47 pm

Please note LGB DOES NOT have a curfew! The noise limits change from 2300-0700 to a level that a Cessna 152 couldn't even meet! So any flight between 2300-0700 (there is a buffer between 2200-2300 for airline ops) is slapped with a "noise violation." LGB is a 24 hour airport!
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4758
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

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

Fri May 08, 2020 8:54 pm

Yeah I just saw that long beach suspended till at least September for all delta flights! The words at least was used. Summer high season is gone. I can't see them doing anything but SLC turns for connections when they come back either expect 2x daily. This fall and winter maybe into 2021.

Long Beach city council gave the middle finger to JetBlue and they over valued their own slots way too much wanting other airlines to come in. Congrats on ruining what other airports would have died for a JetBlue focus city. Now as a true spoke they will learn how the hard way their foolish ways under valuing JetBlue and over estimating other airlines. The grass isn't always greener on the other side. Southwest I think was always gonna lose interest their base is so use to SNA and LAX.

No one wants to go to Vegas so I have to see delta permanently dumping that. Delta Vegas turns were doing bad anyway to long beach in a booming economy My friend is a host in Vegas he said the high rollers have zero interest in coming back short term and alot of normal tourists who can't gamble alot want clubs, pool parties things that can't open. Vegas demand the people that go will drive now rather then step on a plane. Traffic will be less now so no need to fly from so cal
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11

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