ADent wrote:

I am not sure WN really wants those LGB slots - but they are limited in slots at SNA and gates at BUR and LAX (at least pre virus) so the spillover from those airports should be enough to keep WN flying.

WN does seem to view LGB operations as part of a larger Greater Los Angeles strategy - perhaps someone in Huntington Beach would be inclined to use LGB for some trips and SNA for others. I myself live in West Hollywood, right about halfway in-between BUR and LAX. I have lived in the same place for 7 years (it's rent controlled, so it would be almost silly to move and then have to pay market rent) and am very loyal to WN, flying them about half the time from BUR and the other half from LAX. I factor in things like departure and arrival times to avoid traffic, as well as price and nonstop options - but the airline knows where I live, and they know I use both airports often. I can't help but wonder if many other Californians are in the same boat as me, using two or more airports frequently enough that the state's leading carrier notices and strategizes accordingly.

SurfandSnow wrote:

WN does seem to view LGB operations as part of a larger Greater Los Angeles strategy.

Agreed, the LGB play is good one to cover another LA basin airport and densify WN coverage with even more options.

WN is the #1 airline in California, and its the number one airline at most CA airports, so to me LGB was a good opportunity for them to jump on with demise of others ops at the airport.

I’ve connected thru LGB twice now on WN and wouldn’t hesitate to do it again. Easy airport to use, food options are solid, the outdoor area is great, and I love the ground boarding.

Only real drawback since they don’t have many gates I’ve had to wait for a gate both times, and it’s cascaded a bit to later flights until they get a gap in flights to catch up.

Wouldn’t be the worst to push some connections thru LGB so you can get more O&D into LAX/SNA.

This just in- LGB to add another 5 slots following the annual noise review.
https://lbbusinessjournal.com/news/long ... get-review

So will there be any takers?

cynlb wrote:

This just in- LGB to add another 5 slots following the annual noise review.
https://lbbusinessjournal.com/news/long ... get-review

So will there be any takers?

Probably WN I would bet the request all five if nobody else wants them.

With DL losing even more slots at SNA this year they might be interested in moving that lost capacity down the road to LGB. This would certainly be the time for DL growth at LGB if it ever happens.

cynlb wrote:

This just in- LGB to add another 5 slots following the annual noise review.
https://lbbusinessjournal.com/news/long ... get-review

So will there be any takers?

Does LGB dictate what time carriers can utilize the slots ? I understand 7 am - 10 pm is the go time, but can carriers decide when to initiate or land a flight ?

gregn21 wrote:

With DL losing even more slots at SNA this year they might be interested in moving that lost capacity down the road to LGB. This would certainly be the time for DL growth at LGB if it ever happens.

Maybe but they have been giving slots back so seems unlikely too me.

gregn21 wrote:

With DL losing even more slots at SNA this year they might be interested in moving that lost capacity down the road to LGB. This would certainly be the time for DL growth at LGB if it ever happens.

Didn’t DL just give up some slots?

These supplemental slots are awarded only a 1-year basis, and are subject to being withdrawn.

Currently, the eligible airlines on the supplemental slot waiting list (in priority order) are:
1) Breeze Airways
2) Swoop
3) American Airlines
4) Hawaiian Airlines
5) Southwest Airlines

Of this bunch, I only see Southwest ready to act.

I can see HA POSSIBLY taking 1… although they have passed on them before.. adding a 4/3 split for a 2nd HNL/OGG flight is possible… AA just gave a slot up, so I don’t see them adding it back.. SWOOP could go either way… MX is having such a hard time getting their route structure set, I think that they will pass as well. So, quite possible for SWA to walk away with 4 or all 5… just my $0.02

I wish AA would bring back the DFW flight

SurfandSnow wrote:

ADent wrote:

I am not sure WN really wants those LGB slots - but they are limited in slots at SNA and gates at BUR and LAX (at least pre virus) so the spillover from those airports should be enough to keep WN flying.

WN does seem to view LGB operations as part of a larger Greater Los Angeles strategy - perhaps someone in Huntington Beach would be inclined to use LGB for some trips and SNA for others. I myself live in West Hollywood, right about halfway in-between BUR and LAX. I have lived in the same place for 7 years (it's rent controlled, so it would be almost silly to move and then have to pay market rent) and am very loyal to WN, flying them about half the time from BUR and the other half from LAX. I factor in things like departure and arrival times to avoid traffic, as well as price and nonstop options - but the airline knows where I live, and they know I use both airports often. I can't help but wonder if many other Californians are in the same boat as me, using two or more airports frequently enough that the state's leading carrier notices and strategizes accordingly.

Absolutely. I lived in Temecula for years and depending on the time of day I would use SAN, SNA, and ONT as options based on the same criteria you mentioned. Then I moved up to Fresno for a few years and would fly out of OAK, SJC, or SMF.

They absolutely tally all of that information up.

What is interesting is that when SNA loses a few slots, those flights tend to end up at LGB. At least that is what happened with the last slot release a few months ago.

Abeam79 wrote:

It’s funny seeing airline after airline giving up slots and no one wants to grab them except for southwest which keeps adding cause why not gamble since they can being a small sized airport, but it’s not like they have decent revenue environment out of there also.
Hence lgb is one of the worst airports to operate out of.

The gradual increase in slots due to quieter aircraft has made LGB a more attractive airport for an operator like WN. In the L.A. Basin & S.F. Bay Area, WN's core market is offering frequent short-haul flights from airports which are convenient for their customers -- that's why they do things like BUR-OAK 11x daily. It's likely that WN could grow its presence at LGB to be comparable to BUR/SNA/ONT as the number of slots available will probably grow further if the airport stays under its noise budget.

ScottB wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

It’s funny seeing airline after airline giving up slots and no one wants to grab them except for southwest which keeps adding cause why not gamble since they can being a small sized airport, but it’s not like they have decent revenue environment out of there also.
Hence lgb is one of the worst airports to operate out of.

The gradual increase in slots due to quieter aircraft has made LGB a more attractive airport for an operator like WN. In the L.A. Basin & S.F. Bay Area, WN's core market is offering frequent short-haul flights from airports which are convenient for their customers -- that's why they do things like BUR-OAK 11x daily. It's likely that WN could grow its presence at LGB to be comparable to BUR/SNA/ONT as the number of slots available will probably grow further if the airport stays under its noise budget.

If WN does pick up 5 new slots, you almost have to wonder if they could try LGB-SFO service. After all, WN had to give up service on the SNA-SFO route years ago (perhaps AS has since filled that void?) and I think B6 may have done fairly well on the LGB-SFO route (didn't it last right up until the end?). In such a scenario where no other carriers want the available LGB slots, WN could even try something like LGB-SFO 3x daily and then LGB-PDX and LGB-SEA 1x daily each.

SurfandSnow wrote:

If WN does pick up 5 new slots, you almost have to wonder if they could try LGB-SFO service. After all, WN had to give up service on the SNA-SFO route years ago (perhaps AS has since filled that void?) and I think B6 may have done fairly well on the LGB-SFO route (didn't it last right up until the end?). In such a scenario where no other carriers want the available LGB slots, WN could even try something like LGB-SFO 3x daily and then LGB-PDX and LGB-SEA 1x daily each.

I agree that WN adding LGB-SFO nonstop service is a possibility with SFO being one of the top destinations traveled to from LAX on WN that doesn't currently have WN nonstop service out of LGB, even though WN already has nonstop service out of LGB to OAK and SJC in the San Francisco Bay Area.

WN adding LGB-BWI/MCI/TUS nonstop service are also possibilities with BWI, MCI, and TUS being three of the top markets traveled to from Greater Los Angeles on WN that don't currently have WN nonstop service out of LGB.

SurfandSnow wrote:

ScottB wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

It’s funny seeing airline after airline giving up slots and no one wants to grab them except for southwest which keeps adding cause why not gamble since they can being a small sized airport, but it’s not like they have decent revenue environment out of there also.
Hence lgb is one of the worst airports to operate out of.

The gradual increase in slots due to quieter aircraft has made LGB a more attractive airport for an operator like WN. In the L.A. Basin & S.F. Bay Area, WN's core market is offering frequent short-haul flights from airports which are convenient for their customers -- that's why they do things like BUR-OAK 11x daily. It's likely that WN could grow its presence at LGB to be comparable to BUR/SNA/ONT as the number of slots available will probably grow further if the airport stays under its noise budget.

If WN does pick up 5 new slots, you almost have to wonder if they could try LGB-SFO service. After all, WN had to give up service on the SNA-SFO route years ago (perhaps AS has since filled that void?) and I think B6 may have done fairly well on the LGB-SFO route (didn't it last right up until the end?). In such a scenario where no other carriers want the available LGB slots, WN could even try something like LGB-SFO 3x daily and then LGB-PDX and LGB-SEA 1x daily each.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Breeze get a slot at LGB? If so, WN, should definitely start LGB-SFO. That seems like a route Breeze would add. Beat Breeze to the punch.

mesasurf wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

ScottB wrote:

The gradual increase in slots due to quieter aircraft has made LGB a more attractive airport for an operator like WN. In the L.A. Basin & S.F. Bay Area, WN's core market is offering frequent short-haul flights from airports which are convenient for their customers -- that's why they do things like BUR-OAK 11x daily. It's likely that WN could grow its presence at LGB to be comparable to BUR/SNA/ONT as the number of slots available will probably grow further if the airport stays under its noise budget.

If WN does pick up 5 new slots, you almost have to wonder if they could try LGB-SFO service. After all, WN had to give up service on the SNA-SFO route years ago (perhaps AS has since filled that void?) and I think B6 may have done fairly well on the LGB-SFO route (didn't it last right up until the end?). In such a scenario where no other carriers want the available LGB slots, WN could even try something like LGB-SFO 3x daily and then LGB-PDX and LGB-SEA 1x daily each.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Breeze get a slot at LGB? If so, WN, should definitely start LGB-SFO. That seems like a route Breeze would add. Beat Breeze to the punch.

Yes but they gave it up in favor of the slots over at SNA.

Surprised that nobody is complaining about WN having a near monopoly (yet) at LGB like they do in MDW, BUR, DAL, etc. And of course these complainers always overlook the fact that every large station WN has was grown by acquiring slots/gates when their competitors didn’t want them.

airplaneboy wrote:

Surprised that nobody is complaining about WN having a near monopoly (yet) at LGB like they do in MDW, BUR, DAL, etc. And of course these complainers always overlook the fact that every large station WN has was grown by acquiring slots/gates when their competitors didn’t want them.

That’s probably exactly why no one is complaining.

Jshank83 wrote:

airplaneboy wrote:

Surprised that nobody is complaining about WN having a near monopoly (yet) at LGB like they do in MDW, BUR, DAL, etc. And of course these complainers always overlook the fact that every large station WN has was grown by acquiring slots/gates when their competitors didn’t want them.

That’s probably exactly why no one is complaining.

AA, DL, UA, WN, AS, G4, MX, HA, B6, NK, and SY all already serve LAX.

SNA is also already served by AA, DL, UA, WN, AS, G4, F9, and NK, and MX will be starting service out of SNA in February 2023.

Many of the travelers who are traveling to Greater Los Angeles from other parts of the country also prefer to fly into LAX instead of BUR or LGB as there are many markets in the U.S. with nonstop service to LAX that don't currently have any nonstop service to BUR or LGB.

airplaneboy wrote:

Surprised that nobody is complaining about WN having a near monopoly (yet) at LGB like they do in MDW, BUR, DAL, etc. And of course these complainers always overlook the fact that every large station WN has was grown by acquiring slots/gates when their competitors didn’t want them.

LGB is still pretty tiny, despite how much discussion it gets.

It's not even above 40 flights/day at peak.

Plus yields are in the trash.

Midwestindy wrote:

airplaneboy wrote:

Surprised that nobody is complaining about WN having a near monopoly (yet) at LGB like they do in MDW, BUR, DAL, etc. And of course these complainers always overlook the fact that every large station WN has was grown by acquiring slots/gates when their competitors didn’t want them.

LGB is still pretty tiny, despite how much discussion it gets.

It's not even above 40 flights/day at peak.

Plus yields are in the trash.

I’d be curious what % is connecting. When I flew thru there it seemed like there was more than I expected. I wonder if they could push some thru LGB so that LAX could have more O&D. Might be a silly idea but something I thought of.

Midwestindy wrote:

airplaneboy wrote:

Surprised that nobody is complaining about WN having a near monopoly (yet) at LGB like they do in MDW, BUR, DAL, etc. And of course these complainers always overlook the fact that every large station WN has was grown by acquiring slots/gates when their competitors didn’t want them.

LGB is still pretty tiny, despite how much discussion it gets.

It's not even above 40 flights/day at peak.

Plus yields are in the trash.

For once we agree on something.

Jshank83 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

airplaneboy wrote:

Surprised that nobody is complaining about WN having a near monopoly (yet) at LGB like they do in MDW, BUR, DAL, etc. And of course these complainers always overlook the fact that every large station WN has was grown by acquiring slots/gates when their competitors didn’t want them.

LGB is still pretty tiny, despite how much discussion it gets.

It's not even above 40 flights/day at peak.

Plus yields are in the trash.

I’d be curious what % is connecting. When I flew thru there it seemed like there was more than I expected. I wonder if they could push some thru LGB so that LAX could have more O&D. Might be a silly idea but something I thought of.

Probably a lot higher than LAX and SNA. It’s used mainly by people living or traveling to close by. The 405 is nowhere near its pre-COVID levels until you get to LAX. You can get to the LAX exit in 20 minutes, 40 at the most, from LGB most of the time. Obviously LAX is a large hot mess but ultimately it’s still faster than connecting, without the concern of a misconnect.

Southwest is adding Saturday-only LGB-MCO for the summer season, starting July 15, 2023.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/heart-set-sig ... 00983.html

hawaiian717 wrote:

Southwest is adding Saturday-only LGB-MCO for the summer season, starting July 15, 2023.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/heart-set-sig ... 00983.html

Even though it’s one day a week and seasonal for now it’s a good add. Wonder what they will add if they get the five new slots.

It will be very interesting to see what WN does at LGB. I have been hearing from friends that WN has been doing trial runs of dual boarding with great success and that they've been turning around planes in under 30 minutes.

Wneast wrote:

Wonder what they will add if they get the five new slots.

Bradin wrote:

It will be very interesting to see what WN does at LGB. I have been hearing from friends that WN has been doing trial runs of dual boarding with great success and that they've been turning around planes in under 30 minutes.

WN adding LGB-BWI/MCI/SFO nonstop service are possibilities if WN gets extra slots with BWI, MCI, and SFO being three of the top destinations traveled to from Greater Los Angeles on WN that don't currently have WN nonstop service out of LGB.

hawaiian717 wrote:

Southwest is adding Saturday-only LGB-MCO for the summer season, starting July 15, 2023.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/heart-set-sig ... 00983.html

Maybe a counter to MX adding SNA-MCO around the same time, also only 2-3x per week IIRC.

Wneast wrote:

gregn21 wrote:

With DL losing even more slots at SNA this year they might be interested in moving that lost capacity down the road to LGB. This would certainly be the time for DL growth at LGB if it ever happens.

Maybe but they have been giving slots back so seems unlikely too me.

I wonder if DL would try LGB-SEA. With them losing SNA slots, I could see DL SEA-SNA disappearing and ceding it to Alaska. JetBlue used to fly SEA-LGB. We know that Southwest has no desire to expand in Seattle. It could be an opportunity for Delta. Anaheim is about equal distance from SNA and SEA, but leisure traffic might not be worth it.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Wneast wrote:

gregn21 wrote:

With DL losing even more slots at SNA this year they might be interested in moving that lost capacity down the road to LGB. This would certainly be the time for DL growth at LGB if it ever happens.

Maybe but they have been giving slots back so seems unlikely too me.

I wonder if DL would try LGB-SEA. With them losing SNA slots, I could see DL SEA-SNA disappearing and ceding it to Alaska. JetBlue used to fly SEA-LGB. We know that Southwest has no desire to expand in Seattle. It could be an opportunity for Delta. Anaheim is about equal distance from SNA and SEA, but leisure traffic might not be worth it.

Why do people bring this up they had to literally give up a slot why would they want them back now ?

Wonder why UA has never expressed interest in a few slots at LGB. They operate from pretty much every serviceable airport in California to a degree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

asteriskceo wrote:

Wonder why UA has never expressed interest in a few slots at LGB. They operate from pretty much every serviceable airport in California to a degree.

They have flown to LGB the past.

My guess is the past history and looking at current day traffic and avg fares has not shown resumption to be more profitable than other opportunities.

With several airlines dropping slots, it doesn’t really inspire UA to rush in.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Wneast wrote:

gregn21 wrote:

With DL losing even more slots at SNA this year they might be interested in moving that lost capacity down the road to LGB. This would certainly be the time for DL growth at LGB if it ever happens.

Maybe but they have been giving slots back so seems unlikely too me.

I wonder if DL would try LGB-SEA. With them losing SNA slots, I could see DL SEA-SNA disappearing and ceding it to Alaska. JetBlue used to fly SEA-LGB. We know that Southwest has no desire to expand in Seattle. It could be an opportunity for Delta. Anaheim is about equal distance from SNA and SEA, but leisure traffic might not be worth it.

The traffic that uses LGB isn’t worth a one or two or three off destination for most carriers, DL included. The yield is just too low. I started my career in LGB in 1982 with AS. It’s an airport that can fill jets for sure. But there’s more profitable use of the same jet else where. I don’t see DL choosing LGB to replace any SNA flying.

asteriskceo wrote:

Wonder why UA has never expressed interest in a few slots at LGB. They operate from pretty much every serviceable airport in California to a degree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unless Disney asked them for something, I can't ever see United going into LGB

N1120A wrote:

asteriskceo wrote:

Wonder why UA has never expressed interest in a few slots at LGB. They operate from pretty much every serviceable airport in California to a degree.

Unless Disney asked them for something, I can't ever see United going into LGB

UA also doesn't currently serve OAK in the San Francisco Bay Area, even though UA was still serving OAK 11 years ago (prior to UA pulling out of OAK in April 2012).

There are also some other secondary airports such as MDW, DAL, HOU, ISP, SWF, and PAE that don't currently have UA service, even though UA had previously served MDW/DAL/PAE.

There are also a few secondary airports outside of California that currently have UA service such as MHT and HPN.

Continue in the below 2023 Los Angeles Basin Aviation Thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1480051