I think it will be a long time..if ever..when DL comes back. Most of the suspended airports are near way-bigger airports (OAK, MDW etc.)
These outposts will be the last to get reestablished, particularly if things come back slowly.

Just for clarity: Delta is still running 1x a day LGB-SLC via SKW. So I'm assuming we're all referencing the return of mainline DAL A319 SLC-LGB? (and the once-rumored ATL service)?

MDGLongBeach wrote:

Just for clarity: Delta is still running 1x a day LGB-SLC via SKW. So I'm assuming we're all referencing the return of mainline DAL A319 SLC-LGB? (and the once-rumored ATL service)?

For clarity sky west is running right now for delta to SLC ie today you are correct. Tomorrow is the last day. Delta will be gone for Long Beach for a while

Beginning Nov. 1, Southwest will offer round-trip, nonstop flights between Long Beach and Phoenix three times a day, and between Long Beach and Austin once a day, the airline said in a statement.

https://www.presstelegram.com/2020/05/2 ... n-phoenix/

LAXintl wrote:

Beginning Nov. 1, Southwest will offer round-trip, nonstop flights between Long Beach and Phoenix three times a day, and between Long Beach and Austin once a day, the airline said in a statement.

https://www.presstelegram.com/2020/05/2 ... n-phoenix/

Confirms what I've been saying, WN is more of an LGB type carrier then B6 is.

OzarkD9S wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Beginning Nov. 1, Southwest will offer round-trip, nonstop flights between Long Beach and Phoenix three times a day, and between Long Beach and Austin once a day, the airline said in a statement.

https://www.presstelegram.com/2020/05/2 ... n-phoenix/

Confirms what I've been saying, WN is more of an LGB type carrier then B6 is.

Right, adding flights to LGB and taking away flights from LAX is the correct move. Hilarious stuff going on here. LGB is far and away the lowest yielding station for WN in LA Basin.

tphuang wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Beginning Nov. 1, Southwest will offer round-trip, nonstop flights between Long Beach and Phoenix three times a day, and between Long Beach and Austin once a day, the airline said in a statement.

https://www.presstelegram.com/2020/05/2 ... n-phoenix/

Confirms what I've been saying, WN is more of an LGB type carrier then B6 is.

Right, adding flights to LGB and taking away flights from LAX is the correct move. Hilarious stuff going on here. LGB is far and away the lowest yielding station for WN in LA Basin.

Where does it say that they are taking away flights from LAX?

Good to hear.

Will nicely compliment their existing options out of other LA airports giving consumers more choice.

Think they will give AA a good run to PHX. Not sure how committed AA is in the market.

I really hope that WN can be more successful than B6 was here, LGB's convenience always makes it a favorite in the local area (besides NIMBYs of course :p).

UPlog wrote:

Good to hear.

Will nicely compliment their existing options out of other LA airports giving consumers more choice.

Think they will give AA a good run to PHX. Not sure how committed AA is in the market.

I'd bet those slots will be up for grabs soon.

CaptainObvious1 wrote:

Where does it say that they are taking away flights from LAX?

you can check southwest network thread. Apparently, cut LAX to ATL/PDX and down to 20 destinations.

My guess is AA and DL will be out of LGB for a while and AA probably permanently. DL may return with SLC next year.

tphuang wrote:

Right, adding flights to LGB and taking away flights from LAX is the correct move. Hilarious stuff going on here. LGB is far and away the lowest yielding station for WN in LA Basin.

Laugh if you must but this move alone opens up far more of the US market to LGB than B6 could ever hope to offer. And if you haven't noticed, the world has changed since the last meaningful yield data was compiled. Now, if you were concerned about social distancing going forward, crowded indoor LAX vs. open air LGB, not to mention less crowding to begin with. LGB's potential is growing with this development and I for one will see how it turns out in the longer term. I may be wrong, or not.

OzarkD9S wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Right, adding flights to LGB and taking away flights from LAX is the correct move. Hilarious stuff going on here. LGB is far and away the lowest yielding station for WN in LA Basin.

Laugh if you must but this move alone opens up far more of the US market to LGB than B6 could ever hope to offer. And if you haven't noticed, the world has changed since the last meaningful yield data was compiled. Now, if you were concerned about social distancing going forward, crowded indoor LAX vs. open air LGB, not to mention less crowding to begin with. LGB's potential is growing with this development and I for one will see how it turns out in the longer term. I may be wrong, or not.

This is definitely a new one. LAX is going to lose passengers to LGB. We will find out soon enough what demand out of LGB looks like when the overall national demand is down 25 to 30%.

OzarkD9S wrote:

Laugh if you must but this move alone opens up far more of the US market to LGB than B6 could ever hope to offer. And if you haven't noticed, the world has changed since the last meaningful yield data was compiled. Now, if you were concerned about social distancing going forward, crowded indoor LAX vs. open air LGB, not to mention less crowding to begin with. LGB's potential is growing with this development and I for one will see how it turns out in the longer term. I may be wrong, or not.

I think you’re giving a little too much credit to the traveling public. Very few if any will choose Long Beach based on “open air”. Few will even know how Long Beach’s concourses are set up.

They’ll choose Long Beach for the same reasons as before, low fares and convenience. And that wasn’t enough for JetBlue to be healthy.

I agree long beach is super attractive to me when I have to fly again because of its open air! I also love the place, but I agree the average person won't think of this when booking. They should market this actually but I am not sure the average person is smart enough to care and usually just books with their wallets in the end.

Post-COVID, LGB will probably just act as overflow for SNA and LAX as well as give their customers more options. Long term, I’m sure they’ll still want the new terminal in LAX. WN co-exists with itself at all these SoCal airports just fine and will continue to do so in the future. The market is massive and traffic will return to being a nightmare, rendering each airport useful to WN. They’ll eventually run out of SNA slots and LAX gates at some point.

B6 should be bailing from there soon hopefully and putting their eggs in the LAX basket. Wouldn’t it be great if they bought a subfleet of non-hushkitted 727’s and based them at LGB for a year or two before pulling the final plug?

tphuang wrote:

CaptainObvious1 wrote:

Where does it say that they are taking away flights from LAX?

you can check southwest network thread. Apparently, cut LAX to ATL/PDX and down to 20 destinations.

My guess is AA and DL will be out of LGB for a while and AA probably permanently. DL may return with SLC next year.

So you have no proof you can provide directly.

This is quite common of most of your posts pushing others to look up confirmation of items you say, and providing zero evidence of the so called "facts" you post.

Is there not another thread titled something along the lines of "WN looking to squeeze competition"? Lest we not forget that WN found itself squeezed by competitors at nearby LAX (where it ran out of gates) and SNA (where WN's temporary slots were reallocated to other airlines). It sounds like most of WN's LGB slots are still "supplemental" rather than permanent, so it's no surprise that WN is adding LGB-PHX to get the rest of AA's slots and LGB-AUS to make life even more difficult for B6 at this airport. I wonder if we might see LGB-SLC added next?

CaptainObvious1 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

CaptainObvious1 wrote:

Where does it say that they are taking away flights from LAX?

you can check southwest network thread. Apparently, cut LAX to ATL/PDX and down to 20 destinations.

My guess is AA and DL will be out of LGB for a while and AA probably permanently. DL may return with SLC next year.

So you have no proof you can provide directly.

This is quite common of most of your posts pushing others to look up confirmation of items you say, and providing zero evidence of the so called "facts" you post.

they are normally at close to 130 flights at LAX and they've already scaled it down to under 100 flights according to Southwest thread. They can ATL/PDX from LAX. How is that not cutting flights from LAX and adding to LGB?

check this page. All discussion on cutting stuff at LAX.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1437991&start=250

SurfandSnow wrote:

LGB-AUS to make life even more difficult for B6 at this airport.

B6 will be cutting more and it has nothing to do with WN.

nine4nine wrote:

B6 should be bailing from there soon hopefully and putting their eggs in the LAX basket. Wouldn’t it be great if they bought a subfleet of non-hushkitted 727’s and based them at LGB for a year or two before pulling the final plug?

I don’t think it would require any slots for a day of VFR Part 91 pattern work Just imagine the horror from the NIMBYs

SurfandSnow wrote:

LGB-AUS to make life even more difficult for B6 at this airport.

B6 will be cutting more and it has nothing to do with WN.[/quote]

This! B6 focus and strength is currently on the east coast and at some point they will refocus on the west coast but in the near future they rather focus on cutting loose a already depressed yield environment at LGB, which currently is the situation overall nationally, by letting go the one place where its historically been a drag for every airline, and that is LGB. WN yields in LGB have been pretty horrendous, its more of them trying to still be relevant in LA basin while losing slots at SNA and not getting the results they ultimately like out of LAX with no international footprint in a big international airort and no codeshare, all things its competitors have an advantage over WN for seamless travel world wide. WN at LGB is just so they don't lose too much west coast marketshare. B6 will be better off in LAX where they have dozens of coadeshare opportunities and not ridiculous curfews and slot restraints. All things why B6 can eschew those LGB slots and have WN be cornered to a limited airport. I said it many times before, never has an ailine outside of B6 come into LGB and stay indefinitely The airport is not set up for expanding and thriving commercial service. Thats something the LGB city council won't look past until their heads are out of the sand.

LAXBUR wrote:

They’ll choose Long Beach for the same reasons as before, low fares and convenience. And that wasn’t enough for JetBlue to be healthy.

B6 had a few Bay Area flights, some transcons and LAS/SLC. WN is plugging LGB into a good chunk of their national network. I ain't saying their gonna knock it out of the park, but WN is giving LGB access to much more than B6 did, and with WN's strength in SoCal, they have a better shot at making LGB work than B6. We shall see.

tphuang wrote:

This is definitely a new one. LAX is going to lose passengers to LGB. We will find out soon enough what demand out of LGB looks like when the overall national demand is down 25 to 30%.

Yes, we shall. I'm thinking positive on WN at LGB, long term. WN ain't B6.

OzarkD9S wrote:

tphuang wrote:

This is definitely a new one. LAX is going to lose passengers to LGB. We will find out soon enough what demand out of LGB looks like when the overall national demand is down 25 to 30%.

Yes, we shall. I'm thinking positive on WN at LGB, long term. WN ain't B6.

LAX for LGB is a great trade off for B6. They'd be fools to stay there while opportunities open at premier airports.

CobaltScar wrote:

LAX for LGB is a great trade off for B6. They'd be fools to stay there while opportunities open at premier airports.

Yes, exactly. B6 has a workable niche, but it ain't LGB. If anyone can make LGB work its WN. If they can't...Breeze?

B6 is no longer the airline it was when it first started flying at LGB. It was looking to serve secondary airport back then. Now, it's basically behaving more like legacy carrier in the business it's chasing. Given all that has happened, LGB simply isn't the right airport for them anymore. They can continue to go wild on secondary airports like HPN/PVD/BDL in northeast, but really nowhere in the country. Going forward, it's more important for them to attract premium west coast passengers at LAX/SFO by carrying them to the east coast and to Europe via mint. Having 1 major operation in LAX vs split operation also gives them more feed. They will leave and not because of WN.

LGB, with its location between LAX and SNA, also has the handicap of slot limitations, which makes it undesirable to attract business passengers. It has historically really never worked for anyone. Even AS couldn't make SEA work. It doesn't make sense to me for WN to add to LGB while major stations like LAX/SAN/OAK are all down quite a bit of capacity from last year.

tphuang wrote:

B6 is no longer the airline it was when it first started flying at LGB. It was looking to serve secondary airport back then. Now, it's basically behaving more like legacy carrier in the business it's chasing. Given all that has happened, LGB simply isn't the right airport for them anymore. They can continue to go wild on secondary airports like HPN/PVD/BDL in northeast, but really nowhere in the country. Going forward, it's more important for them to attract premium west coast passengers at LAX/SFO by carrying them to the east coast and to Europe via mint. Having 1 major operation in LAX vs split operation also gives them more feed. They will leave and not because of WN.

LGB, with its location between LAX and SNA, also has the handicap of slot limitations, which makes it undesirable to attract business passengers. It has historically really never worked for anyone. Even AS couldn't make SEA work. It doesn't make sense to me for WN to add to LGB while major stations like LAX/SAN/OAK are all down quite a bit of capacity from last year.

Spot on. B6 invested heavily in LGB but unfortunately, wasn’t able to secure greater influence at a growth/slot constrained and niche SoCal airport like LGB. **WN is also no longer the airline it was when B6 first started flying at LGB.** When B6 first started flying at LGB, they were a JFK based airline navigating the post 9/11 world with a *very* loyal NYC (JFK) following (and at the time, the largest funding for a startup airline in the US) - and also with a revolutionary inflight hard product (LiveTV and extra legroom in coach - A320s reconfigured from 162 seats to 150 seats, and then again, recently back to 162 seats). **Sidenote- Frontier Airlines was a full service airline during this time and was the only other airline to also have LiveTV, and no other airline had this amenity worldwide** As a startup company, they had limited capital and resources obviously and decided to concentrate their early growth on NYC (and BOS shortly after JFK). They didn’t have the capital and resources to grow JFK, BOS *and* LGB/west coast at the same time. Instead of choosing to access opportunities at LAX, SNA, ONT & BUR post 9/11 (when gates/slots were more readily available pre-covid) - B6 chose to expand at BOS. AA, DL, and US were all much weaker players in BOS in these early post 9/11 years after being the heavyweights there - and B6 chose to grow there instead of LGB and the west coast. And they chose wisely. They were able to quickly become number one in a large market with only one primary airport (MHT & PVD didn’t have the same competitive catchment for the New England market compared to LGB/SNA/BUR/ONT for the LA basin). Smart move for B6. They used their resources for the greatest possible economic outcome/benefit at that time. They chose to become number one in Boston/New England while all big players there were weaker - and while they faced little to no competition in the entire region. They made the right choice here. BUT! They didn’t have the resources to also take advantage of the opportunities on the west coast at the same time. Remember - it’s no coincidence that their founder (David Neeleman) hailed from WN before B6 and he even had a no compete clause with WN for a set period of time after he left WN. It’s no surprise that B6 largely stayed out of WN’s way network-wise during these early years. Neeleman knew WN very well, and also recognized that B6 would be most profitable in niche markets that they didn’t directly compete with WN in - but also in markets where they were the newbie with the lowest costs. And markets where they were competing with mostly high cost & debt heavy airlines like Delta, American, US Airways, and Continental (instead of WN, and also NW - which was the smallest competition for B6 in terms of majors during this time). Keep in mind that Frontier and Spirit (along with Midwest, National, Midway, Vanguard, Hawaiian and Alaska) were full service carriers during those years, and all served a niche market with attention/emphasis on one or at most - two hub markets.

Look at WN’s operation at LAX/SNA/BUR/ONT during the same years (2000-2019). Look at their number of daily flights flown - and the number of destinations throughout this period at all of these airports. At all 4 airports, you will see an overall increase in both metrics, except for SNA. Largely because operations at SNA are controlled through annual seat caps/allotments mandated by the local city council. These caps limit the number of seats/flights any airline can fly in/out of SNA and this is adjusted annually. Some slots are permanent and others are temporary, or “supplemental,” which allowed WN to take advantage of growth opportunities that were later cut back (supplemental slots being reassigned to other carriers with a smaller footprint at SNA). When these slots were reassigned from WN to other airlines at SNA, WN redistributed this capacity back to LAX, BUR & ONT. And they also used this free aircraft time to open LGB in 2016. The discontinuaron of SNA-SFO by WN had less to do with AS purchasing VX than it did with WN losing so many supplemental slots that it couldn’t be an effective competitor with limited frequencies. Hence WN’s exit from SNA-SFO and adding frequency to SNA-SJC and SNA-SMF, in which SJC and SMF were by now large WN strongholds.

For many years, WN has carried MORE passengers **WITHIN** California (intrastate traffic) and **IN / OUT** of California (interstate traffic) - than any other airline. CA represents something like ONE THIRD of WN’s traffic pre-COVID. Even if LGB has been and continues to be low yielding for WN on a specific flight and date basis, nobody can argue the greater strategic significance & relevance a presence at LGB has for WN compared to B6’s post 9/11 west coast initiative.

In hindsight, what few and precious resources (limited number of aircraft and capital) B6 had post 9/11 that were used to build LGB - should have been used to bolster other growth opportunities. Either at JFK/BOS (which were their primary focus at the time), and also at LAX while all the majors merged and reorganized via chapter 11 bankruptcy. WN did not become number one at BUR, ONT, and SNA overnight. They strategically capitalized on their strength as a high frequency & short haul air travel service WITHIN the region of their highest brand recognition (*the southwest* - ala PHX, LAS, OAK, SJC, SMF, SAN, LAX, BUR, ONT, SNA, ABQ, ELP ... and later DEN in early 2006) to access slots and gates while they were opportunistically available.

***Fuel hedge portfolio marked-to-market gains aside, WN was still OPERATIONALLY profitable as an airline during these years. And other airlines, had already been hedging fuel long before WN***

B6 embarked on their establishment during a remarkable time of the modern airline transformation period in the US (post 9/11 world). But they simply didn’t have enough resources to take advantage of opportunities on both the East and West coasts. WN played its strengths where it knew it could win (CA, SoCal, and now LGB) - much the same B6 did in the northeast (where WN couldn’t succeed and strategically neglected, or poorly competed like PHL, ISP, MHT PVD).

I apologize if that has been answered, but do part 135 flights fall under the slot restrictions at LGB? And just out of curiosity, what about for SNA?

HNLSLCPDX wrote:

I apologize if that has been answered, but do part 135 flights fall under the slot restrictions at LGB? And just out of curiosity, what about for SNA?

Yes at both.

LGB gas a pool of commuter slots that can be utilized for commercial aircraft with MTOW below 75,000lbs

SNA has subset of slots that can be used by smaller aircraft - at or under 70 seats/90,000lbs MTOW, with total annual pax allocation of 400,000 by commuter carriers.

Hearing from JetBlue FA friend that the hammer has fallen.
LGB last day of operations will be November 7 2020.
It's could just be the crew base but she made it sound as the entire operation is closing down and focusing on LAX.

Flyguy

wnflyguy wrote:

Hearing from JetBlue FA friend that the hammer has fallen.
LGB last day of operations will be November 7 2020.
It's could just be the crew base but she made it sound as the entire operation is closing down and focusing on LAX.

Flyguy

Did B6 acquire more gates at LAX? I’m just trying to figure out how B6 grows or even replaces what they had at LGB with LAX. Right now WN can’t even get access to more real estate at LAX until T1E is completed in the next few years. I’m just not sure what B6’s game plan is for LAX going forward.

SWADawg wrote:

Did B6 acquire more gates at LAX? I’m just trying to figure out how B6 grows or even replaces what they had at LGB with LAX. Right now WN can’t even get access to more real estate at LAX until T1E is completed in the next few years. I’m just not sure what B6’s game plan is for LAX going forward.

I highly doubt B6 will be flying LAX-Bay Area/LAS. If they focus on BOS/FLL/JFK they should have enough room. Can't see them wanting to replicate what's left at LGB at LAX at this point.

tphuang wrote:

B6 is no longer the airline it was when it first started flying at LGB. It was looking to serve secondary airport back then. Now, it's basically behaving more like legacy carrier in the business it's chasing. Given all that has happened, LGB simply isn't the right airport for them anymore.

This pretty much sums it up. A secondary airport like LGB is a poor match for an airline which has obviously been turning itself into a network carrier over the past decade. Lie-flat premium cabin on transcontinental flights? Check. Stated desire to go transatlantic? Check. Code-shares with network carriers? Check. Basic and premium economy products? Check.

tphuang wrote:

LGB, with its location between LAX and SNA, also has the handicap of slot limitations, which makes it undesirable to attract business passengers. It has historically really never worked for anyone.

Well, SNA, not to mention LGA and DCA, has slot limitations but remains very attractive to business travelers. The key issue with LGB's slot limitations is that historically there haven't been quite enough. Business travelers want non-stop destinations with an attractive schedule. They don't want to have to wait six hours for the next departure if a meeting runs over or if they get stuck in traffic. Ideally they'd like to be able to jump on an earlier flight if a meeting ends an hour early. This is part of why RJs were so attractive to the U.S. network carriers -- they could replace 2-3x mainline service with 4-6x RJ service, with a near-mainline quality product and a far more attractive schedule.

With 41 daily slots split among all carriers, LGB historically didn't have quite enough slots to support a comprehensive set of destinations with attractive frequencies, especially for a carrier hoping to operate a focus city or mini-hub. Sure, you could offer five or six markets with business-friendly schedules and maybe another five or six with one or two daily flights, but then you're out of slots. WN's perceived failure in a market like BOS is a popular meme around here -- but pre-covid, they were at 31 daily departures to 13 markets from BOS. That's close to as large as B6 ever got at LGB and I don't think anyone would call BOS a focus city for WN. But then virtually all WN's flights from BOS are to airports where they are the #1 or #2 carrier -- and that's only true of of maybe 2 or 3 airports for B6 at LGB.

Old-timers like me will remember WN's TV ads from the previous millennium where they'd scroll a list of departure times across the screen when advertising a particular market. They were emphasizing a convenient schedule for business travelers. They weren't flying 30x daily between DAL and HOU to capture leisure traffic.

WN entered LGB with a strategy -- to make up for losing slots at SNA and to pressure B6's weak operation. It was obvious to even a casual observer that LGB wasn't great for B6; that's why they were chronically underutilizing their slots. And they went in with a WN-style schedule, 4x daily to OAK, with the four slots they received. More importantly, they forced B6 to start using their slots again which was obviously a dumpster fire.

Long-term, I think WN can make LGB reasonably attractive to business travelers in their core short-haul space if they end up with at least half to two-thirds of the expanded slots. They can go 4-6x daily to OAK/SJC/SMF/LAS/PHX/DEN and maybe do a handful of once-daily flights to places like PDX/AUS/MDW/DAL/HOU. That seems to work well for WN at an airport like ONT which probably has less favorable demographics than LGB.

SWADawg wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

Hearing from JetBlue FA friend that the hammer has fallen.
LGB last day of operations will be November 7 2020.
It's could just be the crew base but she made it sound as the entire operation is closing down and focusing on LAX.

Flyguy

Did B6 acquire more gates at LAX? I’m just trying to figure out how B6 grows or even replaces what they had at LGB with LAX. Right now WN can’t even get access to more real estate at LAX until T1E is completed in the next few years. I’m just not sure what B6’s game plan is for LAX going forward.

They were supposedly going to get a total of 5 gates at LAX before COVID. I don't know if they can get more than that now. Either way, I think they will not be concerned about west coast operation for a while. Plenty of stuff going on with East Coast. I do expect a good chunk of the west coast stuff they've had LGB to come back to LAX in some form. But their LAX strategy should look different than their LAX/LGB split station strategy.

If B6 does indeed drastically decrease or all together pull out of LGB I wonder if G4 could move its operation from LAX to LGB. LGB would be closer to Disneyland, Knotts, and all the beach attractions Huntington and south. They could really turn Southern California and that area a destination and true hub for their network. Also of course using LGB would be a lot easier to use than LAX for passengers. I just don’t know how a schedule like G4 has would work with the LGB slot restrictions. Maybe even an airline like Breeze could make LGB work from places such as AZA, PVU, BOI, IDA, FTW, BLI, etc.

On a side note, I just do not see WN building up LGB as many of you say.

SWADawg wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

Hearing from JetBlue FA friend that the hammer has fallen.
LGB last day of operations will be November 7 2020.
It's could just be the crew base but she made it sound as the entire operation is closing down and focusing on LAX.

Flyguy

Did B6 acquire more gates at LAX? I’m just trying to figure out how B6 grows or even replaces what they had at LGB with LAX. Right now WN can’t even get access to more real estate at LAX until T1E is completed in the next few years. I’m just not sure what B6’s game plan is for LAX going forward.

The world changed.

Gates, slots etc are not an issue...at any US airport at this point.

B6 likely sees the opportunity and will move forward in November.

HNLSLCPDX wrote:

If B6 does indeed drastically decrease or all together pull out of LGB I wonder if G4 could move its operation from LAX to LGB. LGB would be closer to Disneyland, Knotts, and all the beach attractions Huntington and south. They could really turn Southern California and that area a destination and true hub for their network. Also of course using LGB would be a lot easier to use than LAX for passengers. I just don’t know how a schedule like G4 has would work with the LGB slot restrictions. Maybe even an airline like Breeze could make LGB work from places such as AZA, PVU, BOI, IDA, FTW, BLI, etc.

Allegiant already tried LGB(2009-2011), but the slot usage requirements do not work well for a seasonal airline that sees its routes and frequencies change often.

LA basin is already a destination market for G4 with a base and aircraft permanently assigned to LAX.

Little update: DAL will be returning on schedule to LGB on August 1 with 3x a day E175 service to SLC. Marking Sept 1, DAL will increase service to 5x a day, 3 mainline flights twice operated by a319 and one A221. rest e175. Bookings in Oct showing same frequency but replacing 738 with a221 on the route. Seems pretty ambitious, opinions?

I still think b6 should keep long beach -slc they have a solid loyal group of followers on the route and could allow connection to BOS,JFK,FLL and MCO. Maybe tough if the whole crew base is gone.

MDGLongBeach wrote:

Little update: DAL will be returning on schedule to LGB on August 1 with 3x a day E175 service to SLC. Marking Sept 1, DAL will increase service to 5x a day, 3 mainline flights twice operated by a319 and one A221. rest e175. Bookings in Oct showing same frequency but replacing 738 with a221 on the route. Seems pretty ambitious, opinions?

I believe DL only has it's domestic schedule final into August

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I still think b6 should keep long beach -slc they have a solid loyal group of followers on the route and could allow connection to BOS,JFK,FLL and MCO. Maybe tough if the whole crew base is gone.

There was some discussion earlier in this thread about this. SLC has been a consistent solid performer and like you said, has a loyal flyership. Though, it is hard to imagine them seeing it as a viable route soon as DAL is becoming more aggressive with the route by adding more mainline capacity, but if anything is going to keep B6 at LGB in the long term, it would be this and maybe a cut frequency transcon.

MDGLongBeach wrote:

Little update: DAL will be returning on schedule to LGB on August 1 with 3x a day E175 service to SLC. Marking Sept 1, DAL will increase service to 5x a day, 3 mainline flights twice operated by a319 and one A221. rest e175. Bookings in Oct showing same frequency but replacing 738 with a221 on the route. Seems pretty ambitious, opinions?

When does the new terminal facility open at SLC? I can't help but wonder if DL could start to make a killing out of airports like BUR, LGB, OAK, ONT, etc. now that connecting through SLC will be a nice experience. Maybe they'll even resume SLC-SBA and give stuff like SLC-MRY/SBP/STS a try?

tphuang wrote:

CaptainObvious1 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

you can check southwest network thread. Apparently, cut LAX to ATL/PDX and down to 20 destinations.

My guess is AA and DL will be out of LGB for a while and AA probably permanently. DL may return with SLC next year.

So you have no proof you can provide directly.

This is quite common of most of your posts pushing others to look up confirmation of items you say, and providing zero evidence of the so called "facts" you post.

they are normally at close to 130 flights at LAX and they've already scaled it down to under 100 flights according to Southwest thread. They can ATL/PDX from LAX. How is that not cutting flights from LAX and adding to LGB?

check this page. All discussion on cutting stuff at LAX.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1437991&start=250

SurfandSnow wrote:

LGB-AUS to make life even more difficult for B6 at this airport.

B6 will be cutting more and it has nothing to do with WN.

It’s not under 100. It’s 107 at LAX for the new full winter schedule in fact. Currently running 49-51 on any given day. What people do not understand is that while we did run 130 a day at LAX it was a max peak schedule and wholly inefficient. Last winter, we were pushing 115-120 a day and still we were struggling with maintaining an on-time schedule. 100-110 is the sweet spot for LAX until we can get back Gate 12A reopened. They’re simply isn’t enough space and staff to support a full 130 a day schedule for now.

When I was working at Midway a couple years back they were talking about upping the departure count from 274-300. The operation and the airfield limitations just couldn’t allow that many flights. When one turn gets backed up it’s a roller coaster effect backs up the entire operation.

Well with Delta Officially Dropping LGB-LAS.
Talk around LGB is they are returning 7 daily flights. Makes since with the current fleet reductions and a much smaller Delta.

I can see WN using these unused slots every 180 days out to add LGB-LAS 7 days a week.
And probably bring back a daily LGB-DEN.

Also WN was said to be taking over gates 1-4 at LGB.

Now if DL officially returns 7 slots and they go out for reallocation I don't see WN being the only beneficiary.
I definitely see Spirit adding it's name into the hat.
Like WN in the past Spirt probably would be awarded 4 And WN 3.

In addition next years noise numbers will be drastically down allowing LGB to add additional 3 supplemental slots for summer 2021.

Flyguy

tphuang wrote:

B6 is no longer the airline it was when it first started flying at LGB. It was looking to serve secondary airport back then. Now, it's basically behaving more like legacy carrier in the business it's chasing. Given all that has happened, LGB simply isn't the right airport for them anymore. They can continue to go wild on secondary airports like HPN/PVD/BDL in northeast, but really nowhere in the country. Going forward, it's more important for them to attract premium west coast passengers at LAX/SFO by carrying them to the east coast and to Europe via mint. Having 1 major operation in LAX vs split operation also gives them more feed. They will leave and not because of WN.

LGB, with its location between LAX and SNA, also has the handicap of slot limitations, which makes it undesirable to attract business passengers. It has historically really never worked for anyone. Even AS couldn't make SEA work. It doesn't make sense to me for WN to add to LGB while major stations like LAX/SAN/OAK are all down quite a bit of capacity from last year.

I don’t think secondary airports is the issue as much as selecting the correct secondary airport. WN makes DAL, HOU, MDW, OAK, FLL work. The problem for B6 at LGB was the restrictions at LGB (slots, times, lack of international facilities, local government). Their weak brand name on the west coast didn’t help matters.

wnflyguy wrote:

Well with Delta Officially Dropping LGB-LAS.
Talk around LGB is they are returning 7 daily flights. Makes since with the current fleet reductions and a much smaller Delta.

I can see WN using these unused slots every 180 days out to add LGB-LAS 7 days a week.
And probably bring back a daily LGB-DEN.

Also WN was said to be taking over gates 1-4 at LGB.

Now if DL officially returns 7 slots and they go out for reallocation I don't see WN being the only beneficiary.
I definitely see Spirit adding it's name into the hat.
Like WN in the past Spirt probably would be awarded 4 And WN 3.

In addition next years noise numbers will be drastically down allowing LGB to add additional 3 supplemental slots for summer 2021.

Flyguy

I don’t see spirit coming here as their business fits more into a point to point system, LGB isn’t one of those “point” airports. I’d expect a possible F9 or AAY return honestly, I know AAYs schedule isn’t very compatible with LGBs slot system but maybe they could try a BOI-like route that would have some consistency. F9 could try a DEN flight again if WN doesnt add it back but at a smaller frequency then they had before, but as of recent they’ve been departing SoCal airports so it’ll be interesting to see how that plays out.

I don’t know what the he** Deltas plan is here with the (12?) slots they have now. I know precovid they were planning ATL and SEA with a few slots but in a post COVID environment I don’t know if that would materialize well in a weak market. DL has been increasingly aggressive here and I don’t think they’d want to give up all those slots for WN to suck up and probably not have the opportunity to get back for awhile. Have you heard anything about them and any plans to change their stance at LGB?

Not to forget, HA also has a slot here that they have until October to announce their intentions with. Still see this is as a “go” with a OGG add?

MDG

HNLSLCPDX wrote:

If B6 does indeed drastically decrease or all together pull out of LGB I wonder if G4 could move its operation from LAX to LGB. LGB would be closer to Disneyland, Knotts, and all the beach attractions Huntington and south. They could really turn Southern California and that area a destination and true hub for their network. Also of course using LGB would be a lot easier to use than LAX for passengers. I just don’t know how a schedule like G4 has would work with the LGB slot restrictions. Maybe even an airline like Breeze could make LGB work from places such as AZA, PVU, BOI, IDA, FTW, BLI, etc.

On a side note, I just do not see WN building up LGB as many of you say.

G4 won't pull out of LAX, but I could see LGB added to their network.

But the reality is the market will shrink and it is likely LGB, due to low yields, will shrink more than the market.

Lightsaber

Wish LGB would get nonstop flights to IDA, PVU, and AZA.