MIflyer12 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

If CLT can be turned into the mega-SE hub and BNA is on it's own way to a 150+ flight SE hub, why can't JetBlue turn RDU into it's own SE station at a much smaller scale?

Because...competition. The ATL and CLT hubs already have the non-stop destination counts and frequencies. BNA is very substantially an O&D airport - the way LAS is an O&D airports. B6 can't build RDU to achieve ATL/CLT economies of scale and n/s premiums. No carrier could. Too many hubs in proximity inhibits growth of them all - see CHI and WAS. Eighty flight hublets can't compete with 700+ flight/day hubs.

That is very true. The scale at ATL and CLT would make RDU as a 150-175 daily flight operation extremely tough. The O&D market, substantial as it is, and growing rapidly, isn't enough of a scale to support it and RDU, as wonderful an airport as it is, isn't quite set up for this type of operation. The hublet concept is largely gone at this point. Focus cities like AUS, RDU (for DL), and BOS are not about connections. They are all about local demand.

MIflyer12 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

If CLT can be turned into the mega-SE hub and BNA is on it's own way to a 150+ flight SE hub, why can't JetBlue turn RDU into it's own SE station at a much smaller scale?

Because...competition. The ATL and CLT hubs already have the non-stop destination counts and frequencies. BNA is very substantially an O&D airport - the way LAS is an O&D airports. B6 can't build RDU to achieve ATL/CLT economies of scale and n/s premiums. No carrier could. Too many hubs in proximity inhibits growth of them all - see CHI and WAS. Eighty flight hublets can't compete with 700+ flight/day hubs.

It's more an argument that RDU has enough O&D to be built as a SE station similar to BNA (although quite a bit smaller). Anything JetBlue tries at RDU will be mostly O&D. But given it's location, it can naturally also handle good amount of connections. They can try adding stuff like BUF/ALB/SYR/PWM-RDU (which have around 75 to 100 PDEW) on E90 and fill some of those seats with connections to Florida. Even if 25 to 30% of seats are connection, that will help make these routes work. Right now, most of JetBlue's connection from northeast to Florida are at BOS/JFK. I can't imagine RDU being more delay prone or as high cost as BOS/JFK.

80 to 100 flight station would be a pretty large sized focus city for JetBlue.

tphuang wrote:

Anyway, a little more food for thought for 2021 given what has happened in the past 9 months. Taking a look at domestic PDEW (only continental USA) on some of the larger to medium sized markets for 2019Q3. Now, a lot of this could change post-COVID, but we won't know for a while the exact change.

This means not much long term. Domestic demand to certain holiday destinations are more depressed, namely South Florida, Las Vegas and Orlando, which are all traditionally larger domestic O&D markets then the likes of Boston, Dallas, Denver, etc. Vegas is still barely open (many hotels closed Tu/We/Th), Orlando theme parks still at restricted and reservation only capacity and cruise ships, which account for a huge chunk of domestic O&D at FLL especially, are still not operating.

MAH4546 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Anyway, a little more food for thought for 2021 given what has happened in the past 9 months. Taking a look at domestic PDEW (only continental USA) on some of the larger to medium sized markets for 2019Q3. Now, a lot of this could change post-COVID, but we won't know for a while the exact change.

This means not much long term. Domestic demand to certain holiday destinations are more depressed, namely South Florida, Las Vegas and Orlando, which are all traditionally larger domestic O&D markets then the likes of Boston, Dallas, Denver, etc. Vegas is still barely open (many hotels closed Tu/We/Th), Orlando theme parks still at restricted and reservation only capacity and cruise ships, which account for a huge chunk of domestic O&D at FLL especially, are still not operating.

This is using 2019 Q3 data, not 2020. You can make the argument that is peak demand period for places like Seattle and Boston and low demand period for Miami. But I also made the comment in there that I expect South Florida to be a top 5 overall market going forward.

tphuang wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Anyway, a little more food for thought for 2021 given what has happened in the past 9 months. Taking a look at domestic PDEW (only continental USA) on some of the larger to medium sized markets for 2019Q3. Now, a lot of this could change post-COVID, but we won't know for a while the exact change.

This means not much long term. Domestic demand to certain holiday destinations are more depressed, namely South Florida, Las Vegas and Orlando, which are all traditionally larger domestic O&D markets then the likes of Boston, Dallas, Denver, etc. Vegas is still barely open (many hotels closed Tu/We/Th), Orlando theme parks still at restricted and reservation only capacity and cruise ships, which account for a huge chunk of domestic O&D at FLL especially, are still not operating.

This is using 2019 Q3 data, not 2020. You can make the argument that is peak demand period for places like Seattle and Boston and low demand period for Miami. But I also made the comment in there that I expect South Florida to be a top 5 overall market going forward.

Got it. Yes, it’s not averaged out annually so it’s not of as much use. I’ve seen annualized O&D charts (been a whole though) and South Florida (which also includes PBI) and Chicago are typically 4 and 5.

ETA: here. Below is annualized and domestic but by airport so need to combine. And it’s missing secondary airports like PBI, SFB, DAL but should give a rough picture.

https://i.imgur.com/EvcsAI8.png

Midwestindy wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

But you guys are arguing over semantics as if a major break doesn’t exist in February.

In actuality, unless Easter falls in March, the New York area doesn’t have any break in March at all.

February is huge for B6

February is the 3rd slowest month of the year for B6, technically the slowest if you don't account for it having fewer days:

Read their 2019 monthly traffic reports, March/April + Jun/July/August are the biggest travel months by quite a large margin then December/May are next:
http://investor.jetblue.com/investor-re ... eases.aspx

But the Presidents Week is one of their busiest weeks of their year along with xmas week, thanksgiving week, Easter week, and summer.

I dont understand what the resistance to this is.

jfklganyc wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

But you guys are arguing over semantics as if a major break doesn’t exist in February.

In actuality, unless Easter falls in March, the New York area doesn’t have any break in March at all.

February is huge for B6

February is the 3rd slowest month of the year for B6, technically the slowest if you don't account for it having fewer days:

Read their 2019 monthly traffic reports, March/April + Jun/July/August are the biggest travel months by quite a large margin then December/May are next:
http://investor.jetblue.com/investor-re ... eases.aspx

But the Presidents Week is one of their busiest weeks of their year along with xmas week, thanksgiving week, Easter week, and summer.

I dont understand what the resistance to this is.

Sure Presidents weekend is nice but the rest of the month sucks for them.

Cointrin330 wrote:

B6's February cuts are not insignificant, with capacity down roughly 40% from where it was a year ago, but that's a tough and unfair comparison given that the pandemic was not yet fully impacting air travel in February 2020. Still these cuts:

BOS-BDA, MSP, PHL, ROC, SYR
FLL-PSP (this should surprise no one)
HPN-LAS
LAS-RIC
EWR-SRQ (it is increasingly evident the B6 expansion at EWR isn't quite working out without causing a major cash bleed)
JFK-GEO, MJT, BNA, RNO, SEA
LGA-RSW and TPA (WOW)
MCO-MBJ, SFO
PBI-ORD, PHL, PIT

Wait what!? B6 does HPN-LAS? I can’t find evidence of that anywhere. I did not know HPN even goes that far. I personally much prefer JFK/EWR over HPN for B6 (I like big airports)

Also, is B6 doing very well at EWR and LAS?

From today, the number of flights they are operating out of some major airports vs competitors to put things into perspective
EWR 31 (UA 175)
JFK 86 (DL 100 AA 18)
BOS 74 (DL 42 AA 31)
FLL 66 (NK 82 WN 35)
LAX 22 (DL 123 AA 66 UA 83 WN 44 AS 61)

People need to chill about EWR. It's doing pretty well. JFK right now is only operating just over 50% of it's pre-COVID # of flights and BOS is operating less than that. UA is operating probably 50% of its pre-COVID # of flights out of EWR. As demand continues to recover next year and more routes get added for the summer season, I think you will see them running about 60 flights a day by August. You don't make the investment they made to get additional gates at EWR without a firm plan to expand.

FLL is already almost catching up to BOS in # of flights. It's certainly coming back sooner than JFK/BOS. That's just where demand is right now. It also helps them that WN has basically given up in FLL. No need to be alarmed about JFK/BOS.

As for LAX, they have added a lot of long thin transcon that probably can't support year round daily service even in regular demand environment. They probably added some routes earlier than they wanted to. I'm sure it's annoying to the people that booked RIC/CHS-LAX and the flights got canceled. But once demand comes back a little more and they are not hemorrhaging on cash, I think you will see mo realistic schedule on some of these markets. I also don't see them really ramping up schedule until A220 is in service in large numbers.

tphuang wrote:

CLT's local market is shockingly small. It's only slightly more than RDU. If RDU had more service at lower fares than CLT, that gap probably will be even smaller. If CLT can be turned into the mega-SE hub and BNA is on it's own way to a 150+ flight SE hub, why can't JetBlue turn RDU into it's own SE station at a much smaller scale? Obviously, it will take time and getting more gate access to even reach 50 to 60 flight. While JetBlue will never be connection oriented, they could connect more than they do now to win over greater market share.

Charlotte is only the 22nd largest metro area. It's not a tourist draw at all. I'd imagine companies either based there, or with significant operations are not in industries that book a large amount of corporate travel. No major colleges or universities or hospitals.

B752OS wrote:

tphuang wrote:

CLT's local market is shockingly small. It's only slightly more than RDU. If RDU had more service at lower fares than CLT, that gap probably will be even smaller. If CLT can be turned into the mega-SE hub and BNA is on it's own way to a 150+ flight SE hub, why can't JetBlue turn RDU into it's own SE station at a much smaller scale? Obviously, it will take time and getting more gate access to even reach 50 to 60 flight. While JetBlue will never be connection oriented, they could connect more than they do now to win over greater market share.

Charlotte is only the 22nd largest metro area. It's not a tourist draw at all. I'd imagine companies either based there, or with significant operations are not in industries that book a large amount of corporate travel. No major colleges or universities or hospitals.

CLT is a major financial services hub and the HQ location for Bank of America. The city's top companies include Lowe's Inc, Duke Energy, Nucor, Brighthouse Financial, Domtar, and Sealed Air. Coca-Cola, Curtis-Wright, Bojangles, Lending Tree are some of the area's other top employers. CLT generates a significant amount of business travel but it's also a relatively low cost place to hub.

The idea that RDU could be turned into a mega-hub is simply idiotic. It would require the rapid build out of terminals, more runways, and would need to clear plenty of local ordinances to achieve that. CLT became a major hub decades ago, starting with Piedmont, then USAir, and now obviously, through the merger is the #2 hub for AA. I can see B6 building up some sort of focus operation at RDU, similar in size to what DL had there pre-COVID19, but with more service to Florida, California, and potentially, some beach markets, and focus that operation as P2P. JetBlue is overwhelmingly a leisure airline and derives a smaller (much) portion of its revenue from corporate travel, which, will not likely rebound to 2019 levels for a few years, but remains a key part of the RDU market, which needs access to Europe, Asia, and Latin America given all the bio-tech and pharma situated in and around the Triangle. That traffic will for the foreseeable future, flow via ATL, CLT, IAD, EWR, MIA, DFW, etc...JetBlue cannot offer that, not even with a pair of flights to secondary and tertiary London airports in the near future, which at the rate things are looking right now, will likely get pushed back well into 2022.

Cointrin330 wrote:

B752OS wrote:

tphuang wrote:

CLT's local market is shockingly small. It's only slightly more than RDU. If RDU had more service at lower fares than CLT, that gap probably will be even smaller. If CLT can be turned into the mega-SE hub and BNA is on it's own way to a 150+ flight SE hub, why can't JetBlue turn RDU into it's own SE station at a much smaller scale? Obviously, it will take time and getting more gate access to even reach 50 to 60 flight. While JetBlue will never be connection oriented, they could connect more than they do now to win over greater market share.

Charlotte is only the 22nd largest metro area. It's not a tourist draw at all. I'd imagine companies either based there, or with significant operations are not in industries that book a large amount of corporate travel. No major colleges or universities or hospitals.

CLT is a major financial services hub and the HQ location for Bank of America. The city's top companies include Lowe's Inc, Duke Energy, Nucor, Brighthouse Financial, Domtar, and Sealed Air. Coca-Cola, Curtis-Wright, Bojangles, Lending Tree are some of the area's other top employers. CLT generates a significant amount of business travel but it's also a relatively low cost place to hub.

The idea that RDU could be turned into a mega-hub is simply idiotic. It would require the rapid build out of terminals, more runways, and would need to clear plenty of local ordinances to achieve that. CLT became a major hub decades ago, starting with Piedmont, then USAir, and now obviously, through the merger is the #2 hub for AA. I can see B6 building up some sort of focus operation at RDU, similar in size to what DL had there pre-COVID19, but with more service to Florida, California, and potentially, some beach markets, and focus that operation as P2P. JetBlue is overwhelmingly a leisure airline and derives a smaller (much) portion of its revenue from corporate travel, which, will not likely rebound to 2019 levels for a few years, but remains a key part of the RDU market, which needs access to Europe, Asia, and Latin America given all the bio-tech and pharma situated in and around the Triangle. That traffic will for the foreseeable future, flow via ATL, CLT, IAD, EWR, MIA, DFW, etc...JetBlue cannot offer that, not even with a pair of flights to secondary and tertiary London airports in the near future, which at the rate things are looking right now, will likely get pushed back well into 2022.

I have never said RDU can be turned into mega-hub. The comparison of RDU to CLT is just to show that RDU has enough O&D to be their SE focus city. Even what WN has done in BNA would be beyond what JetBlue can do at RDU. A 50 to 60 flight station by 2023 should be possible and it would be mostly O&D. Depending on what DL chooses to do, 80 to 100 with a lot more connection to Florida would be a possible several years later. It would be crazy for them to not try to capture some of that Florida connection traffic given RDU's great location and the crowded airspace around NYC.

I also disagree with the sentiment that JetBlue cannot capture more of the corporate travel. It certainly has been able to do so in BOS. As they add more Europe and Latin America flying + middle of the country markets, they will be able to capture more of that corporate share. There is no reason someone can't connect to Europe via BOS/JFK or to Latin America via FLL on B6. A large proportion of passengers on RDU-FLL flights are connecting and same with RDU-BOS flights. As they expand in RDU and businss travel starts to come back, I expect them to slowly win over some of that corporate pie out of RDU if they can offer the most destinations. They didn't build BOS overnight. I don't expect RDU to be a short term project either. However, DL's retreat from non-hub/leisure markets have given them a really wide opening there and might allow them to fast track some of the initial pain.

Are there any plans for EWR TATL flights?

B752OS wrote:

tphuang wrote:

CLT's local market is shockingly small. It's only slightly more than RDU. If RDU had more service at lower fares than CLT, that gap probably will be even smaller. If CLT can be turned into the mega-SE hub and BNA is on it's own way to a 150+ flight SE hub, why can't JetBlue turn RDU into it's own SE station at a much smaller scale? Obviously, it will take time and getting more gate access to even reach 50 to 60 flight. While JetBlue will never be connection oriented, they could connect more than they do now to win over greater market share.

Charlotte is only the 22nd largest metro area. It's not a tourist draw at all. I'd imagine companies either based there, or with significant operations are not in industries that book a large amount of corporate travel. No major colleges or universities or hospitals.

CLT punches above its weight corporate travel wise, a couple of examples:

Bank of America is headquartered there, and they spent the 18th most on corporate travel out of any US company
Wells Fargo has a "2nd hq" in CLT, where they employ 27k people, and they spend the 36th most on corporate travel

https://www.businesstravelnews.com/Corp ... l-100/2020

FYI American has a huge operation in RDU. Also RDU has the APEX, and pretty much every major tech company has facilities or offices in the area. It’s nothing like CLT two different animals all together

Blueknows wrote:

FYI American has a huge operation in RDU. Also RDU has the APEX, and pretty much every major tech company has facilities or offices in the area. It’s nothing like CLT two different animals all together

Their operation is much smaller than it used to be. I’m not even talking hub days, I’m talking about in the mid 2000s when Eagle had a large presence there.

Delta also has a formidable presence there.

But again, nobody is that large and the area is growing and there is plenty of runway capacity

https://onemileatatime.com/american-air ... cific-hub/
Also American is cutting flights from lax. So if people think B6 can’t get more room your wromg

Looking at this week's OAG thread, B6 has made a lot of LAX cuts on shorter routes, including LAX-SFO/LAS/SEA, which are all suspended in January and February (SEA only suspended in Feb). That makes me a bit skeptical at the future of B6 at LAX. If they're having low bookings (relatively speaking) for high-demand routes in LAX, then that seems a bit troublesome IMO.

On the other hand, SEA-FLL and PDX-FLL are now scheduled with the A321, which I guess makes up for SEA-JFK, SEA-BOS and PDX-JFK getting suspended.

I did notice that SMF-JFK is still on the schedule, which makes me wonder why they're not starting SMF-FLL.

Blueknows wrote:

https://onemileatatime.com/american-airlines-cuts-lax-transpacific-hub/
Also American is cutting flights from lax. So if people think B6 can’t get more room your wromg

American cut a total of four daily long-haul flights. That's not a lot. And its look two of them - Hong Kong looking likely and Shanghai maybe - are coming back. Plus they are adding other flying like Christchurch.

Also, we are talking about COVID times. A lot of these cuts are temporary, just like jetBlue absolutely obliterating it's January/February LAX schedule temporarily. JetBlue barely needs two gates.

MAH4546 wrote:

Blueknows wrote:

https://onemileatatime.com/american-airlines-cuts-lax-transpacific-hub/
Also American is cutting flights from lax. So if people think B6 can’t get more room your wromg

American cut a total of four daily long-haul flights. That's not a lot. And its look two of them - Hong Kong looking likely and Shanghai maybe - are coming back. Plus they are adding other flying like Christchurch.

Also, we are talking about COVID times. A lot of these cuts are temporary, just like jetBlue absolutely obliterating it's January/February LAX schedule temporarily. JetBlue barely needs two gates.

If you think LAX-HKG/PVG are coming back, you have completely underestimated the level of demand drop to Asia for the next few years.

tphuang wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Blueknows wrote:

https://onemileatatime.com/american-airlines-cuts-lax-transpacific-hub/
Also American is cutting flights from lax. So if people think B6 can’t get more room your wromg

American cut a total of four daily long-haul flights. That's not a lot. And its look two of them - Hong Kong looking likely and Shanghai maybe - are coming back. Plus they are adding other flying like Christchurch.

Also, we are talking about COVID times. A lot of these cuts are temporary, just like jetBlue absolutely obliterating it's January/February LAX schedule temporarily. JetBlue barely needs two gates.

If you think LAX-HKG/PVG are coming back, you have completely underestimated the level of demand drop to Asia for the next few years.

AA announced at their most recent LAX employee town hall that they are wanting to bring LAXHKG back sooner rather than later. PVG will be longer term. No plans for PEK.

But yes, they'll be back. We aren't talking about next week dude. We are talking over the next 1-3 years. And I bet Sao Paulo comes back too by winter 2022 - Brazil demand is overperforming right now and American is forecasting South America comes back much quicker than others. Hence all the 787s they are flying down there through end of schedule and significant capacity boosts to the market next summer.

MAH4546 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

American cut a total of four daily long-haul flights. That's not a lot. And its look two of them - Hong Kong looking likely and Shanghai maybe - are coming back. Plus they are adding other flying like Christchurch.

Also, we are talking about COVID times. A lot of these cuts are temporary, just like jetBlue absolutely obliterating it's January/February LAX schedule temporarily. JetBlue barely needs two gates.

If you think LAX-HKG/PVG are coming back, you have completely underestimated the level of demand drop to Asia for the next few years.

AA announced at their most recent LAX employee town hall that they are wanting to bring LAXHKG back sooner rather than later. PVG will be longer term. No plans for PEK.

But yes, they'll be back. We aren't talking about next week dude. We are talking over the next 1-3 years. And I bet Sao Paulo comes back too by winter 2022 - Brazil demand is overperforming right now and American is forecasting South America comes back much quicker than others. Hence all the 787s they are flying down there through end of schedule and significant capacity boosts to the market next summer.

One is in south america and the other 2 are in Asia. Totally different market. AA probably feels like it needs to re-assert itself in LAX now that DL is making a big play in the market. But the reality is China Region was a disaster out of LAX for AA pre-COVID and it will be even worse if they tried it again. AA's TPAC hub for the foreseeable future is DFW.

If AA C-suite thinks LAX-HKG is a market they need to be in, then they clearly haven't been to Hong Kong recently. I will stop here.

AC4500 wrote:

Looking at this week's OAG thread, B6 has made a lot of LAX cuts on shorter routes, including LAX-SFO/LAS/SEA, which are all suspended in January and February (SEA only suspended in Feb). That makes me a bit skeptical at the future of B6 at LAX. If they're having low bookings (relatively speaking) for high-demand routes in LAX, then that seems a bit troublesome IMO.

I wouldn't read all that much into it - remember that B6 aren't really that well known a commodity in the LA area and are expanding at LAX in a time of very limited travel demand, even at a massive O&D market like LAX. For good measure, the BOS-EWR/LGA/PHL shuttle routes are pretty much down to 0 for the coming months as well but I don't think anyone's questioning whether B6 will be strong at BOS post-pandemic. B6 are expecting increased cash burn headed into Q1 so cutting low-yielding short haul routes for a month or two while traffic is virtually nil doesn't really have any long-term implications on B6's LAX network. Don't forget that the LA area is experiencing a worst-in-the-nation case/hospitalization surge and is under a stay-at-home order. And there's some positives, too: LAX-CUN/PBI are doing okay, LAX-EWR is poised to be another cash cow once there's more overall industry demand, and I don't see how LAX-MIA/SJD wouldn't also be very popular routes for B6.

It seems clear to me that LAX will be B6's main transcon hub on the west coast, so jetBlue is probably thinking that the shorter routes are mainly feed for its long-and-thin flying that wouldn't make sense to do from places like SEA or even LAS/SFO. So without demand on those kinds of routes, it doesn't make sense to fly those routes. Whether that logic will work out for B6 is an open question, but I still expect more routes to be added out of LAX in 2021 while long-and-thin and short-haul frequencies remain suppressed.

AC4500 wrote:

Looking at this week's OAG thread, B6 has made a lot of LAX cuts on shorter routes, including LAX-SFO/LAS/SEA, which are all suspended in January and February (SEA only suspended in Feb). That makes me a bit skeptical at the future of B6 at LAX. If they're having low bookings (relatively speaking) for high-demand routes in LAX, then that seems a bit troublesome IMO.

Uhm, in case you’re not aware, but we’re in a global pandemic and aviation demand is pretty much close to rock bottom right now and will be for several more months. You can’t base the low demand that’s going on right now on these cuts. By the time things come back to normal they will be well positioned in LAX. So stop with the foolish doom and gloom of the cuts. The cuts are everywhere and from every airline it doesn’t matter what market you’re in. Also a buddy of mine was just in a B6 corporate meeting and they are “very very happy with how well Newark has performed for them thus far. Expect further growth there” “Lax isn’t that bad either, but it will be a little longer to live up to what they plan”.

Abeam79 wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Looking at this week's OAG thread, B6 has made a lot of LAX cuts on shorter routes, including LAX-SFO/LAS/SEA, which are all suspended in January and February (SEA only suspended in Feb). That makes me a bit skeptical at the future of B6 at LAX. If they're having low bookings (relatively speaking) for high-demand routes in LAX, then that seems a bit troublesome IMO.

Uhm, in case you’re not aware, but we’re in a global pandemic and aviation demand is pretty much close to rock bottom right now and will be for several more months. You can’t base the low demand that’s going on right now on these cuts. By the time things come back to normal they will be well positioned in LAX. So stop with the foolish doom and gloom of the cuts. The cuts are everywhere and from every airline it doesn’t matter what market you’re in. Also a buddy of mine was just in a B6 corporate meeting and they are “very very happy with how well Newark has performed for them thus far. Expect further growth there” “Lax isn’t that bad either, but it will be a little longer to live up to what they plan”.

Will they be well positioned at LAX? For the most part they’ll be flying a bunch of routes with tons of competition or alternatively long, thin routes with not much chance of success.

From now on will need routes pretty much be announced in these large announcements or should we except singles here and there?

Abeam79 wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Looking at this week's OAG thread, B6 has made a lot of LAX cuts on shorter routes, including LAX-SFO/LAS/SEA, which are all suspended in January and February (SEA only suspended in Feb). That makes me a bit skeptical at the future of B6 at LAX. If they're having low bookings (relatively speaking) for high-demand routes in LAX, then that seems a bit troublesome IMO.

Uhm, in case you’re not aware, but we’re in a global pandemic and aviation demand is pretty much close to rock bottom right now and will be for several more months. You can’t base the low demand that’s going on right now on these cuts. By the time things come back to normal they will be well positioned in LAX. So stop with the foolish doom and gloom of the cuts. The cuts are everywhere and from every airline it doesn’t matter what market you’re in. Also a buddy of mine was just in a B6 corporate meeting and they are “very very happy with how well Newark has performed for them thus far. Expect further growth there” “Lax isn’t that bad either, but it will be a little longer to live up to what they plan”.

Of course the pandemic has contributed to the low bookings, that's not my point. Technically speaking, there are still going to be routes that have higher demand than others, even during a pandemic.

As others have stated, B6 seems to be announcing LAX routes with daily, or multiple daily flights knowing full well that they won't be flying that much capacity by the time the new routes have started. What was the point of them announcing these new routes at such high frequencies when it's pretty clear that they dont actually intend to fly this type of schedule until demand picks back up?

I think eventually they will go back to smaller announcements. There is no way they can keep announcing so many new routes at a time.

With the current lockdown in Cali, there just isn't that much demand in Jan/Feb. I'd be more concerned if those west coast routes aren't operated at least 4x weekly this summer (assuming leisure demand comes back). It's possible a couple of those thin transcons may never operate daily year round. Pre-COVID, BUF-LAX was only 4x weekly in winter time. JetBlue has said that expect to really start building up in 2023. I think that's a reasonable timeline given their other priorities.

The other question is why they chose to add so many low demand routes that they don't intend to operate at announced schedule for a while. Maybe they announced a couple of these routes early to show LAWA they are trying to grow and need the gates that were promised. I don't know if they anticipated having to cancel stuff like CHS/RIC-LAX completely for Jan/Feb when they announced it. Maybe they thought they could still run them 2x weekly during low season. This most recent wave and the Cali lockdown probably hurt demand more than they expected.

I expect the thin transcon to be a key part of their strategy going forward. They fly more thin transcon from JFK and BOS than anyone else. They even flew BUF-LAX when nobody else would. The fact that LAX is not a major connection hub for Big 3 means nobody aside from AS will consider adding service to thin transcon markets. A220-300's capacity is more suited for these markets than MAX9. I think you will see A220 on a lot of these markets.

Their position at LAX is the carrier that takes you to east coast, to leisure destinations and only the primary airport along the west coast. They will most likely operate A220 along west coast, and on thin transcon + A321 mint to the larger premium market on east coast and Hawaii. If VX managed to capture ff with a much smaller network, I don't see why B6 can't do it. Once they build up their west coast schedule in a few years, LAX be a connection point from east coast to major west coast markets like SEA/SFO/SLC/PHX/SMF and leisure markets like SJD/LAS/HNL/BZN. They don't have a middle of the country focus city, so LAX will allow them to capture some of those 1-stop connection itinerary from Eastern part of the country.

Blueknows wrote:

FYI American has a huge operation in RDU. Also RDU has the APEX, and pretty much every major tech company has facilities or offices in the area. It’s nothing like CLT two different animals all together

Not really, no. AA's operations at RDU pre-COVID19 were not insignificant but far from huge, with service to the hubs, plus LHR. It is the #2 carrier at RDU, I think, but it is far from a huge operation. Mainline service to CLT, ORD, DFW, LHR, LAX, MIA, LGA, PHX, DCA and CUN (seasonal), and Eagle to BOS, ORD, JFK, LGA, PHL, PIT, and DCA (the BOS route hasn't as of yet started) and all of these are pre-COVID19 routes.

MAH4546 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

American cut a total of four daily long-haul flights. That's not a lot. And its look two of them - Hong Kong looking likely and Shanghai maybe - are coming back. Plus they are adding other flying like Christchurch.

Also, we are talking about COVID times. A lot of these cuts are temporary, just like jetBlue absolutely obliterating it's January/February LAX schedule temporarily. JetBlue barely needs two gates.

If you think LAX-HKG/PVG are coming back, you have completely underestimated the level of demand drop to Asia for the next few years.

AA announced at their most recent LAX employee town hall that they are wanting to bring LAXHKG back sooner rather than later. PVG will be longer term. No plans for PEK.

But yes, they'll be back. We aren't talking about next week dude. We are talking over the next 1-3 years. And I bet Sao Paulo comes back too by winter 2022 - Brazil demand is overperforming right now and American is forecasting South America comes back much quicker than others. Hence all the 787s they are flying down there through end of schedule and significant capacity boosts to the market next summer.

It's doubtful AA will resume LAX-HKG. PEK was pulled already, and LAX-PVG is moving to SEA. The future of AA long haul at LAX will be SYD, AKL, CHC (if that ever starts), LHR, HND and that's about it. Maybe GRU a few times a week.

It used to be that AA ‘owned’ the BOS-LAX market. But they’ve been much less enthusiastic about it during the pandemic, for obvious reasons. But it could be an opportunity for B6 to claim superiority on this route and hold onto it even once AA decides to come back.

tphuang wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

If you think LAX-HKG/PVG are coming back, you have completely underestimated the level of demand drop to Asia for the next few years.

AA announced at their most recent LAX employee town hall that they are wanting to bring LAXHKG back sooner rather than later. PVG will be longer term. No plans for PEK.

But yes, they'll be back. We aren't talking about next week dude. We are talking over the next 1-3 years. And I bet Sao Paulo comes back too by winter 2022 - Brazil demand is overperforming right now and American is forecasting South America comes back much quicker than others. Hence all the 787s they are flying down there through end of schedule and significant capacity boosts to the market next summer.

One is in south america and the other 2 are in Asia. Totally different market. AA probably feels like it needs to re-assert itself in LAX now that DL is making a big play in the market. But the reality is China Region was a disaster out of LAX for AA pre-COVID and it will be even worse if they tried it again. AA's TPAC hub for the foreseeable future is DFW.

If AA C-suite thinks LAX-HKG is a market they need to be in, then they clearly haven't been to Hong Kong recently. I will stop here.

DL is making big investments in LAX and applying a similar game plan to what they built at JFK, which was a loss leader for years, before turning profitable around 2013. AA remains the top carrier at LAX by market share, very quickly followed by DL, then UA. LAX is a market everyone wants to be in meaningfully and yet no one really dominates. I'm not sure AA needs to "reassert" anything in LAX vis-a-vis DL. That's just the typical arm-chair Airliners.net speculation coming from a place of no knowledge whatsoever. You're also forgetting that AS has a significant footprint at LAX which will benefit AA and OW.

The problem with LAX-China pre-COVID19 isn't how you illustrate it. The problem was saturation. AA's network suffers from not having a definitive West Coast gateway to Asia Pacific. PHX doesn't work and all AA had was LAX. LAX is a big market with many players. No one really dominates West Coast to Asia and Pacific the way UA does from SFO. DL's SEA TPAC network is weak, with a lot of markets that it could not adequately sustain pre-COVID. It will take years for the TPAC market to recover. AA can only really make TPAC work from DFW, given the huge hub it has there but the problem with that it is ends up forgoing a lot of West Coast originating traffic.

Brickell305 wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Looking at this week's OAG thread, B6 has made a lot of LAX cuts on shorter routes, including LAX-SFO/LAS/SEA, which are all suspended in January and February (SEA only suspended in Feb). That makes me a bit skeptical at the future of B6 at LAX. If they're having low bookings (relatively speaking) for high-demand routes in LAX, then that seems a bit troublesome IMO.

Uhm, in case you’re not aware, but we’re in a global pandemic and aviation demand is pretty much close to rock bottom right now and will be for several more months. You can’t base the low demand that’s going on right now on these cuts. By the time things come back to normal they will be well positioned in LAX. So stop with the foolish doom and gloom of the cuts. The cuts are everywhere and from every airline it doesn’t matter what market you’re in. Also a buddy of mine was just in a B6 corporate meeting and they are “very very happy with how well Newark has performed for them thus far. Expect further growth there” “Lax isn’t that bad either, but it will be a little longer to live up to what they plan”.

Will they be well positioned at LAX? For the most part they’ll be flying a bunch of routes with tons of competition or alternatively long, thin routes with not much chance of success.

You do realize B6 focus cities are all in places with. “Tons of competition” and do just fine. It’s like asking if an polar bear will not thrive in Antarctica vs North Pole. They are both similar environments.

Abeam79 wrote:

Brickell305 wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

Uhm, in case you’re not aware, but we’re in a global pandemic and aviation demand is pretty much close to rock bottom right now and will be for several more months. You can’t base the low demand that’s going on right now on these cuts. By the time things come back to normal they will be well positioned in LAX. So stop with the foolish doom and gloom of the cuts. The cuts are everywhere and from every airline it doesn’t matter what market you’re in. Also a buddy of mine was just in a B6 corporate meeting and they are “very very happy with how well Newark has performed for them thus far. Expect further growth there” “Lax isn’t that bad either, but it will be a little longer to live up to what they plan”.

Will they be well positioned at LAX? For the most part they’ll be flying a bunch of routes with tons of competition or alternatively long, thin routes with not much chance of success.

You do realize B6 focus cities are all in places with. “Tons of competition” and do just fine. It’s like asking if an polar bear will not thrive in Antarctica vs North Pole. They are both similar environments.

Except that being the 8th carrier on LAX-Reno is a lot different than being the 4th on JFK-LAX.

ChrisNH38 wrote:

It used to be that AA ‘owned’ the BOS-LAX market. But they’ve been much less enthusiastic about it during the pandemic, for obvious reasons. But it could be an opportunity for B6 to claim superiority on this route and hold onto it even once AA decides to come back.

Yep, it has been interesting to see how AA/UA have basically been absent from BOS-LAX for the past couple of months. Mint has really crushed competition on this route. I suppose DL is still keeping 2x on this route and operating a rather robust LAX schedule to win the market share battle.

If people are wondering why JetBlue needs to build a focus city in LAX, just see the impact of NYC/BOS/SoFla-LAX to their network out of their 3 main East Coast market. Having a more robust west coast schedule will allow them to do even better on those mint routes and with corporate accounts out of East Coast. There are close to 30 flights a day scheduled in those 3 markets alone. All extremely profitable during normal demand period. Those thin transcon from east coast will eventually help their positions in markets like BDL, RIC, CHS and of course RDU. Once they are ready to really build up LAX, they are just going to have to swallow the losses from 20 to 30 short haul flights for rest of the network.

Brickell305 wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

Brickell305 wrote:

Will they be well positioned at LAX? For the most part they’ll be flying a bunch of routes with tons of competition or alternatively long, thin routes with not much chance of success.

You do realize B6 focus cities are all in places with. “Tons of competition” and do just fine. It’s like asking if an polar bear will not thrive in Antarctica vs North Pole. They are both similar environments.

Except that being the 8th carrier on LAX-Reno is a lot different than being the 4th on JFK-LAX.

JetBlue cannot spend its time avoiding competition.

Cointrin330 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

If you think LAX-HKG/PVG are coming back, you have completely underestimated the level of demand drop to Asia for the next few years.

AA announced at their most recent LAX employee town hall that they are wanting to bring LAXHKG back sooner rather than later. PVG will be longer term. No plans for PEK.

But yes, they'll be back. We aren't talking about next week dude. We are talking over the next 1-3 years. And I bet Sao Paulo comes back too by winter 2022 - Brazil demand is overperforming right now and American is forecasting South America comes back much quicker than others. Hence all the 787s they are flying down there through end of schedule and significant capacity boosts to the market next summer.

It's doubtful AA will resume LAX-HKG. PEK was pulled already, and LAX-PVG is moving to SEA. The future of AA long haul at LAX will be SYD, AKL, CHC (if that ever starts), LHR, HND and that's about it. Maybe GRU a few times a week.

We’ll see. I’d be shocked if AA isn’t back in LA-China/HK by 2023. They’ve already publicly said they want back in, it’s not even a guess.

MAH4546 wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

AA announced at their most recent LAX employee town hall that they are wanting to bring LAXHKG back sooner rather than later. PVG will be longer term. No plans for PEK.

But yes, they'll be back. We aren't talking about next week dude. We are talking over the next 1-3 years. And I bet Sao Paulo comes back too by winter 2022 - Brazil demand is overperforming right now and American is forecasting South America comes back much quicker than others. Hence all the 787s they are flying down there through end of schedule and significant capacity boosts to the market next summer.

It's doubtful AA will resume LAX-HKG. PEK was pulled already, and LAX-PVG is moving to SEA. The future of AA long haul at LAX will be SYD, AKL, CHC (if that ever starts), LHR, HND and that's about it. Maybe GRU a few times a week.

We’ll see. I’d be shocked if AA isn’t back in LA-China/HK by 2023. They’ve already publicly said they want back in, it’s not even a guess.

By 2023?? That seems ...late.

Dieuwer wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

It's doubtful AA will resume LAX-HKG. PEK was pulled already, and LAX-PVG is moving to SEA. The future of AA long haul at LAX will be SYD, AKL, CHC (if that ever starts), LHR, HND and that's about it. Maybe GRU a few times a week.

We’ll see. I’d be shocked if AA isn’t back in LA-China/HK by 2023. They’ve already publicly said they want back in, it’s not even a guess.

By 2023?? That seems ...late.

I mean 2021 is already shot, let's see how travel recovers.

ChrisNH38 wrote:

It used to be that AA ‘owned’ the BOS-LAX market. But they’ve been much less enthusiastic about it during the pandemic, for obvious reasons. But it could be an opportunity for B6 to claim superiority on this route and hold onto it even once AA decides to come back.

As a whole, AA has been very pessimistic with the LAX market during the pandemic, and DL has taken over a major portion of AA's prior market share on many of their previous LAX routes. Most of AA's Eagle regional routes have been suspended since the very beginning of the pandemic, although the demise of their regional affiliate Compass airlines also played a major role in this.

Anyhow,

Looking at the current placeholder schedule for LAX-BOS (example, September 7, 2021: https://www.google.com/travel/flights/s ... gYIAxAAGAA)

It looks like AA is still dominant on LAX-BOS with 7x daily flights currently scheduled, while JetBlue is at 5x daily flights. Also, it wasn't terribly long ago when AA announced that a few of their daily LAX-BOS flights would be scheduled on their business class oriented A321T jet (likely as a response to JetBlue's MINT product). Of course, lots of schedule changes will be made between now and then and perhaps B6 will become the dominant airline on this route by then.

Cointrin330 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

AA announced at their most recent LAX employee town hall that they are wanting to bring LAXHKG back sooner rather than later. PVG will be longer term. No plans for PEK.

But yes, they'll be back. We aren't talking about next week dude. We are talking over the next 1-3 years. And I bet Sao Paulo comes back too by winter 2022 - Brazil demand is overperforming right now and American is forecasting South America comes back much quicker than others. Hence all the 787s they are flying down there through end of schedule and significant capacity boosts to the market next summer.

One is in south america and the other 2 are in Asia. Totally different market. AA probably feels like it needs to re-assert itself in LAX now that DL is making a big play in the market. But the reality is China Region was a disaster out of LAX for AA pre-COVID and it will be even worse if they tried it again. AA's TPAC hub for the foreseeable future is DFW.

If AA C-suite thinks LAX-HKG is a market they need to be in, then they clearly haven't been to Hong Kong recently. I will stop here.

DL is making big investments in LAX and applying a similar game plan to what they built at JFK, which was a loss leader for years, before turning profitable around 2013. AA remains the top carrier at LAX by market share, very quickly followed by DL, then UA. LAX is a market everyone wants to be in meaningfully and yet no one really dominates. I'm not sure AA needs to "reassert" anything in LAX vis-a-vis DL. That's just the typical arm-chair Airliners.net speculation coming from a place of no knowledge whatsoever. You're also forgetting that AS has a significant footprint at LAX which will benefit AA and OW.

The problem with LAX-China pre-COVID19 isn't how you illustrate it. The problem was saturation. AA's network suffers from not having a definitive West Coast gateway to Asia Pacific. PHX doesn't work and all AA had was LAX. LAX is a big market with many players. No one really dominates West Coast to Asia and Pacific the way UA does from SFO. DL's SEA TPAC network is weak, with a lot of markets that it could not adequately sustain pre-COVID. It will take years for the TPAC market to recover. AA can only really make TPAC work from DFW, given the huge hub it has there but the problem with that it is ends up forgoing a lot of West Coast originating traffic.

CAN WE STOP SAYING JFK WAS A LOSS LEADER?

Not one bit of proof on this site. Not one.

Delta has had a hub at JFK since 1991. 30 years. If you are going to claim that DL lost money for 22 years at JFK (which is laughable)...put up the proof.

If you cant, stop posting it

jfklganyc wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

One is in south america and the other 2 are in Asia. Totally different market. AA probably feels like it needs to re-assert itself in LAX now that DL is making a big play in the market. But the reality is China Region was a disaster out of LAX for AA pre-COVID and it will be even worse if they tried it again. AA's TPAC hub for the foreseeable future is DFW.

If AA C-suite thinks LAX-HKG is a market they need to be in, then they clearly haven't been to Hong Kong recently. I will stop here.

DL is making big investments in LAX and applying a similar game plan to what they built at JFK, which was a loss leader for years, before turning profitable around 2013. AA remains the top carrier at LAX by market share, very quickly followed by DL, then UA. LAX is a market everyone wants to be in meaningfully and yet no one really dominates. I'm not sure AA needs to "reassert" anything in LAX vis-a-vis DL. That's just the typical arm-chair Airliners.net speculation coming from a place of no knowledge whatsoever. You're also forgetting that AS has a significant footprint at LAX which will benefit AA and OW.

The problem with LAX-China pre-COVID19 isn't how you illustrate it. The problem was saturation. AA's network suffers from not having a definitive West Coast gateway to Asia Pacific. PHX doesn't work and all AA had was LAX. LAX is a big market with many players. No one really dominates West Coast to Asia and Pacific the way UA does from SFO. DL's SEA TPAC network is weak, with a lot of markets that it could not adequately sustain pre-COVID. It will take years for the TPAC market to recover. AA can only really make TPAC work from DFW, given the huge hub it has there but the problem with that it is ends up forgoing a lot of West Coast originating traffic.

CAN WE STOP SAYING JFK WAS A LOSS LEADER?

Not one bit of proof on this site. Not one.

Delta has had a hub at JFK since 1991. 30 years. If you are going to claim that DL lost money for 22 years at JFK (which is laughable)...put up the proof.

If you cant, stop posting it

First of all, no one ever said or implied Delta lost money for 22 years at JFK. You're just not reading the posts for detail. Delta's JFK footprint goes farther back than 1991 as we all know, but the current framework traces its origins to the acquisition of Pan Am's TATL network, The WorldPort, and other assets there. Delta shed a lot of Pan Am's routes quickly by the mid-1990s and opted to have partner airlines, everyone from TAP to Aer Lingus, to Swissair, and so forth, do the flying for them, with DL operating core routes to Europe only for the most part and some seasonals here and there and everything else routed through the FRA hub which was inherited as well, and dismantled by the end of the decade. Delta has pumped billions into NYC generally since it emerged from Chapter 11 in 2007 and it is from that point that I was referring to. The investment definitely paid off in the long run, but they had to fight for corporate contracts that in 2007 were largely sitting with CO and AA for NY Area POS. They've done very well with NY until the pandemic hit, and presumably, they'll retain and build out more post pandemic.

Lastly, please don't dare tell me to stop posting. If it hurts your sensibilities, or doesn't align with your conspiracy theories, "stop the steal" crap, then don't read them. I have a lot of experience in the sector and I know what I am talking about.

jfklganyc wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

One is in south america and the other 2 are in Asia. Totally different market. AA probably feels like it needs to re-assert itself in LAX now that DL is making a big play in the market. But the reality is China Region was a disaster out of LAX for AA pre-COVID and it will be even worse if they tried it again. AA's TPAC hub for the foreseeable future is DFW.

If AA C-suite thinks LAX-HKG is a market they need to be in, then they clearly haven't been to Hong Kong recently. I will stop here.

DL is making big investments in LAX and applying a similar game plan to what they built at JFK, which was a loss leader for years, before turning profitable around 2013. AA remains the top carrier at LAX by market share, very quickly followed by DL, then UA. LAX is a market everyone wants to be in meaningfully and yet no one really dominates. I'm not sure AA needs to "reassert" anything in LAX vis-a-vis DL. That's just the typical arm-chair Airliners.net speculation coming from a place of no knowledge whatsoever. You're also forgetting that AS has a significant footprint at LAX which will benefit AA and OW.

The problem with LAX-China pre-COVID19 isn't how you illustrate it. The problem was saturation. AA's network suffers from not having a definitive West Coast gateway to Asia Pacific. PHX doesn't work and all AA had was LAX. LAX is a big market with many players. No one really dominates West Coast to Asia and Pacific the way UA does from SFO. DL's SEA TPAC network is weak, with a lot of markets that it could not adequately sustain pre-COVID. It will take years for the TPAC market to recover. AA can only really make TPAC work from DFW, given the huge hub it has there but the problem with that it is ends up forgoing a lot of West Coast originating traffic.

CAN WE STOP SAYING JFK WAS A LOSS LEADER?

Not one bit of proof on this site. Not one.

Delta has had a hub at JFK since 1991. 30 years. If you are going to claim that DL lost money for 22 years at JFK (which is laughable)...put up the proof.

If you cant, stop posting it

Think the commentator is referring to Delta's expansion at JFK post 2007, not 1991. Delta did outlay a lot of cash in the NY market for a while from 2007 through its merger with NW to "win" NY. I doesn't look like anyone is arguing that point. The costs through, were very much evident, judging by the expense of T4 work and the LGA terminal renovations. Why so mean?

AC4500 wrote:

Also, it wasn't terribly long ago when AA announced that a few of their daily LAX-BOS flights would be scheduled on their business class oriented A321T jet (likely as a response to JetBlue's MINT product). Of course, lots of schedule changes will be made between now and then and perhaps B6 will become the dominant airline on this route by then.

Didn't AA use the upgraded A321s BOS-LAX before giving up on it soon thereafter?

ChrisNH38 wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Also, it wasn't terribly long ago when AA announced that a few of their daily LAX-BOS flights would be scheduled on their business class oriented A321T jet (likely as a response to JetBlue's MINT product). Of course, lots of schedule changes will be made between now and then and perhaps B6 will become the dominant airline on this route by then.

Didn't AA use the upgraded A321s BOS-LAX before giving up on it soon thereafter?

They did, for a short time, on one frequency, with a repositioning flight to/from JFK. It was pulled, I think, due to the pandemic and not due to performance. Believe all but 3 of the A321Ts are parked right now. They're only flying once almost daily to SFO at the moment, from JFK, using one. Last year, during the holiday period, before the pandemic, AA also operated some of the 321T's between MIA and LAX.

Cointrin330 wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

DL is making big investments in LAX and applying a similar game plan to what they built at JFK, which was a loss leader for years, before turning profitable around 2013. AA remains the top carrier at LAX by market share, very quickly followed by DL, then UA. LAX is a market everyone wants to be in meaningfully and yet no one really dominates. I'm not sure AA needs to "reassert" anything in LAX vis-a-vis DL. That's just the typical arm-chair Airliners.net speculation coming from a place of no knowledge whatsoever. You're also forgetting that AS has a significant footprint at LAX which will benefit AA and OW.

The problem with LAX-China pre-COVID19 isn't how you illustrate it. The problem was saturation. AA's network suffers from not having a definitive West Coast gateway to Asia Pacific. PHX doesn't work and all AA had was LAX. LAX is a big market with many players. No one really dominates West Coast to Asia and Pacific the way UA does from SFO. DL's SEA TPAC network is weak, with a lot of markets that it could not adequately sustain pre-COVID. It will take years for the TPAC market to recover. AA can only really make TPAC work from DFW, given the huge hub it has there but the problem with that it is ends up forgoing a lot of West Coast originating traffic.

CAN WE STOP SAYING JFK WAS A LOSS LEADER?

Not one bit of proof on this site. Not one.

Delta has had a hub at JFK since 1991. 30 years. If you are going to claim that DL lost money for 22 years at JFK (which is laughable)...put up the proof.

If you cant, stop posting it

First of all, no one ever said or implied Delta lost money for 22 years at JFK. You're just not reading the posts for detail. Delta's JFK footprint goes farther back than 1991 as we all know, but the current framework traces its origins to the acquisition of Pan Am's TATL network, The WorldPort, and other assets there. Delta shed a lot of Pan Am's routes quickly by the mid-1990s and opted to have partner airlines, everyone from TAP to Aer Lingus, to Swissair, and so forth, do the flying for them, with DL operating core routes to Europe only for the most part and some seasonals here and there and everything else routed through the FRA hub which was inherited as well, and dismantled by the end of the decade. Delta has pumped billions into NYC generally since it emerged from Chapter 11 in 2007 and it is from that point that I was referring to. The investment definitely paid off in the long run, but they had to fight for corporate contracts that in 2007 were largely sitting with CO and AA for NY Area POS. They've done very well with NY until the pandemic hit, and presumably, they'll retain and build out more post pandemic.

Lastly, please don't dare tell me to stop posting. If it hurts your sensibilities, or doesn't align with your conspiracy theories, "stop the steal" crap, then don't read them. I have a lot of experience in the sector and I know what I am talking about.

I’m not telling you to stop posting at all.

I’m calling out a post that is a wives tail and asking you to put up the proof that backs up your claim.

I don’t work for Delta or have any skin in the game, but they didn’t run a money losing operation for 22 years. Every time you or another poster say that Delta just became profitable at JFK in the last few years you are directly and indirectly stating that.

It is ridiculous.

Delta poured money into New York over the last 15 years because they finally wanted to surpass the giant hub at EWR. Nothing more, nothing less.

This involved growing JFK from just north of 100 flights to just north of 250 flights. The hub went from a two bank afternoon hub to a more well rounded, through the day hub.

The Achilles Heel of JFK is LGA. This effects short/medium haul business yield. But this is more than made up for with transcons, VFR, and International Yield.

With a catchment area of 18 million people, JFK is the largest international gateway in the US. And despite competition, JFK prints money contrary to the folk lore on a.net. 70 airlines dont fly there for prestige

[twoid][/twoid]

Cointrin330 wrote:

ChrisNH38 wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

Also, it wasn't terribly long ago when AA announced that a few of their daily LAX-BOS flights would be scheduled on their business class oriented A321T jet (likely as a response to JetBlue's MINT product). Of course, lots of schedule changes will be made between now and then and perhaps B6 will become the dominant airline on this route by then.

Didn't AA use the upgraded A321s BOS-LAX before giving up on it soon thereafter?

They did, for a short time, on one frequency, with a repositioning flight to/from JFK. It was pulled, I think, due to the pandemic and not due to performance. Believe all but 3 of the A321Ts are parked right now. They're only flying once almost daily to SFO at the moment, from JFK, using one. Last year, during the holiday period, before the pandemic, AA also operated some of the 321T's between MIA and LAX.

It was twice a day. Pulled well before COVID ever happened due to performance. It’s tough to make three class work outside of JFKLAX/SFO and to a more limited extent MIALAX.

AA could benefit from a narrowbody 2-class plane with lie flat. The A321LR will have this but that’s a few years away.

Please continue discussion in Jetblue Network Thread - 2021

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1455979