JetBlue makes LAX West Coast focus city

aaway · Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:05 am

Interesting discussion thus far. I won't wade into the factions side of the discussion. There are questions regarding LAX that I'll answer:
(1) W/R/T leases - In simple terms, LAWA has a dual system for real estate for the pax carriers. One is the "typical" lease with associated rights & protections for both lessor & lessee (or landlord & tenant). The other system is the "tariff" system whereby a carrier pays for for the use of a designated space. The main differences between the two are that the smaller carriers, international carriers and those carriers not willing/unwilling commit to entire terminal complexes typically go with the LAX tariff. Your larger carriers - typically the US4, but with an exception or two (AC, AS), commit to the leases.
(2) From the lessee perspective, rights for use of space under the tariff system are less. IOW, LAWA can dictate moves/relocations faster under that system.

Other tidbits:

(3) The former F.I.S. in Terminal 5 is just that - former. Portions of it have already been removed for the consolidated T4-T5 check-in/screening facility.
(4) HA and F9 were the domestic carriers slated to move to the MSC.
(5) HA & LAWA are in litigation regarding a move to the MSC under the terms of the LAX Tariff.
(6) At the start of the crisis, AA was the only carrier in T5 operating under lease terms. From my admittedly anecdotal observations, it appears (at the moment) that AA is attempting to abide by activity metrics associated with the lease. The present flight schedule could easily be accommodated in T4.
(7) The former LGB activity of B6 + 10 flights can easily be absorbed by T5 at present.

Those are the facts as of this time.

I'll speculate on the future here, with the assumption being somewhat best case: lets see just how close AA and AS become.

aaway · Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:19 am

Tack wrote:
catiii wrote:
Tack wrote:

Not sure what your background is but what your saying isn’t the least bit inline with how AS and many airlines view these contracts. They absolutely push a big amount of money to the carrier and build loyalty. Through a myriad of revenue channels. I appreciate your take, but it’s just that, a take or view. Airlines want and need corporate revenue and build their networks to accommodate the higher value customer that they bring. I’ll admit my saying that they’re everything was indeed overstated. But you’re far too discounting of their value. I’ll go out on a limb and say that was a missing piece for B6 while hubbing in LGB.
Cheers!

Out of curiosity what’s YOUR background. You’re in corporate sales at Alaska?

I’ll bite...I wore many hats while there for 36 years. I was one of a handful of folks that started the AS push into international markets. I was based at LAX at that time. I was operationally responsible for the LAX-SJD start up. Later on I wrote the Canadian operational plan and opened LAX-YYZ. That market was borne out of a desire to capture high value business flying. Both contractual and at will biz customers. Following that, I was involved with the expansion into the Russian Far East. Specifically Vladivostok and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. While we sold mostly tourist packages, we began that entry to those cities to capture oil and gas contracts. Finally I started the ONT-MEX route, which again, was a desire to get a toe hold in a huge business city and be able to bid for Corp flight contracts, with the ultimate goal to receive route authority from LAX. My interaction with planning and sales, which I felt was useless at the time due to my operational chops, taught me how much value AS placed on corporate contracts. Many of those I worked with on that side of the fence moved on to Corp sales positions with the US3 and shared some of the thought process that those airlines had in regard to capturing high value contracts. So while I’ll admit my knowledge isn’t as a negotiator for that business, I had a seat at the table during planning and can tell you, revenue/ loyalty from those contracts was openly discussed and sought after. I’ll stand by what I said earlier, that type of contracted flying isn’t available to B6 unless they’re at LAX. And while Mint is amazing, they’re operating with one arm tied behind their back until they broaden their network.

Gotta agree with Tack here. I have a bit of sales experience in my now many years of industry experience & remember well the effort made to win new business by hook or crook. And just to add, I'd say look at the situation at AA coming out of BK-1 (yeah, I'm calling it that). One of the earliest dumb moves made by the "succession management" (about the best sobriquet I can use) was, in essence, to disassemble AA's corporate sales organization. Of course, a couple of years later they belatedly discovered the importance of having a corporate sales program.

wnflyguy · Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:19 pm

rbavfan wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
alasizon wrote:

The money is in SNA and BUR for domestic travel, they are just space limited. I don't see this though as being any less successful than their existing LGB service. They already were offering these routes from LGB so it isn't as if it is new capacity in the overall LA market.

The gate situation will be interesting to see moving forward.

BUR most likely gets another boost in flights as well and SNA added once the 220 comes online.

SNA still rotates capacity yearly. Just cause you have 4 slot pairs now does not mean you won't have only 1 next year. Also SNA not only limits flights but also the number of total passengers allowed per year for the airport.

Most airlines at SNA have a minimum of 2 AA permanent slots.
Only slots that can be reduced are the EE supplemental capacity slots based on the annual passenger capacity. These are the same slots WN has used a lot over the years to add additional service. Unfortunately they do fluctuate year to year which for SNA is April to April so Airlines are not forced to cut service over the holiday season.
JetBlue will probably start out with 2 Daily flights unless it opts for the US International plan were each international flight is given 1 domestic flight for aircraft rotation.

Depending on how they want to use the A220 to SNA I wouldn't be surprised if they jump on the international markets of PVR and SJD.
Daily aircraft routes like:
BOS-SNA-SJD-SNA-BOS(red eye)
JFK-SNA-PVR-SNA-JFK(Red eye)

Flyguy

LAXintl · Sun Jul 12, 2020 4:01 pm

wnflyguy wrote:
Unfortunately they do fluctuate year to year which for SNA is April to April so Airlines are not forced to cut service over the holiday season.

Since 2012 SNA slot award year is the same as the calendar year - Jan 1 - Dec 31.

slcdeltarumd11 · Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:29 pm

Alot of LAX flyers are blessed with super competative routes , so they naturally price surf or time surf every time and probably belong to Every ff program. Why wouldn't you, lax is a place where the n/s can vary in price a ton between airlines each time.

JetBlue had a really different situation if you like the long beach experience they naturally were your airline. They might get some, but most former JetBlue long beach flyers I think will shift to southwest after they use their miles. JetBlue will need to find a new FF pool and flyer but it's not like they are new or anything. I do think the Virgin America void , JetBlue really can win those people pretty quickly and have a place. Virgin America had a really loyal following out if lax, similar to JetBlue long beach crowd and on board experience. JetBlue is a good match for lax their product is just way better than AA, DL,UA or even WN. They can grow a following and the product is perfect for so cal. Remember when people said JetBlue could never compete against the legacies at JFK and BOS, I think they will form a much larger base of flyers with these new destinations.

It's gonna take some time and yeah some routes will not work or need to swapped. Lax is such a hyper competative place, but I do think there is room for them there. JetBlue can win the Transcon game and former virgin America flyers crowd.

janders · Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:47 pm

Ladies and Gents,

As a reminder, this thread is about JetBlue making LAX its West Coast focus city.

Keep the discussion on topic, not on WN in NYC, DL in SEA, Midwest fly over states, who has GE corporate contract, COVID etc.

Thank you

MrPeanut · Sun Jul 12, 2020 6:01 pm

usflyer msp wrote:
BTW, AA made money domestically from LAX pre-COVID. Trying to fly to China from LAX is what made it go into the red.

AA made money out of LAX domestically but it’s important to understand how. Outside of routes to their hubs (40% of seat capacity out of LAX), the number of routes where AA was the airfare leader was a small handful of routes and those had average airfares below those of LAX as a whole. Therefore, I would assume a lot of their non hub domestic routes where they had competition were money losers. I think most of those go aaway.

On the other hand, I think B6 can make a lot of routes work out of LAX that AA couldn’t because of their lower cost structure.

aaway · Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:18 pm

MrPeanut wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:
BTW, AA made money domestically from LAX pre-COVID. Trying to fly to China from LAX is what made it go into the red.

AA made money out of LAX domestically but it’s important to understand how. Outside of routes to their hubs (40% of seat capacity out of LAX), the number of routes where AA was the airfare leader was a small handful of routes and those had average airfares below those of LAX as a whole. Therefore, I would assume a lot of their non hub domestic routes where they had competition were money losers. I think most of those go aaway.

Of course on a segment basis, all carriers have a similar problem somewhere within their networks. What we don't know & what will not be disclosed publicly, is how certain routes performed on a contribution basis. Right WT? That will likely determine what ultimately stays vs. goes.

MrPeanut · Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:56 am

aaway wrote:
MrPeanut wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:
BTW, AA made money domestically from LAX pre-COVID. Trying to fly to China from LAX is what made it go into the red.

AA made money out of LAX domestically but it’s important to understand how. Outside of routes to their hubs (40% of seat capacity out of LAX), the number of routes where AA was the airfare leader was a small handful of routes and those had average airfares below those of LAX as a whole. Therefore, I would assume a lot of their non hub domestic routes where they had competition were money losers. I think most of those go aaway.

Of course on a segment basis, all carriers have a similar problem somewhere within their networks. What we don't know & what will not be disclosed publicly, is how certain routes performed on a contribution basis. Right WT? That will likely determine what ultimately stays vs. goes.

In theory yes. However, given a few large hurdles with operating out of LAX, I think the outcome is much clearer than it would normally be.

aaway · Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:30 am

MrPeanut wrote:
aaway wrote:
MrPeanut wrote:

AA made money out of LAX domestically but it’s important to understand how. Outside of routes to their hubs (40% of seat capacity out of LAX), the number of routes where AA was the airfare leader was a small handful of routes and those had average airfares below those of LAX as a whole. Therefore, I would assume a lot of their non hub domestic routes where they had competition were money losers. I think most of those go aaway.

Of course on a segment basis, all carriers have a similar problem somewhere within their networks. What we don't know & what will not be disclosed publicly, is how certain routes performed on a contribution basis. Right WT? That will likely determine what ultimately stays vs. goes.

In theory yes. However, given a few large hurdles with operating out of LAX, I think the outcome is much clearer than it would normally be.

Without taking this too far off topic, frankly, the situation isn't so much about constraints at LAX, or of the Los Angeles market. This (AA) is a result of a balance sheet that no longer supports flying where the possible payoff is far into the future.

aemoreira1981 · Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:23 am

Could B6 ultimately become the number 4 carrier at LAX, with AS retrenching? B6 can also expand into Central America and non-MEX Mexico. I see B6 ultimately also competing for WN's customers at LAX.

LAXBUR · Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:29 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Could B6 ultimately become the number 4 carrier at LAX, with AS retrenching? B6 can also expand into Central America and non-MEX Mexico. I see B6 ultimately also competing for WN's customers at LAX.

I don’t really get this idea they can or want to take WN customers. If that were the case they would have stayed in LGB and/or kept intra-California routes. Without a lot of intra-California routes they can’t steal much from WN. LAX-SFO won’t steal WN folks.

KlimaBXsst · Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:48 am

In all reality, does anyone really see this ending well for Blue in LAX?

To go up against 3 entrenched major, mainline, legacy, traditional, network carriers offering long-haul first class products nationwide and across the world with very entrenched frequent flyers bases their lounges and other perks, just doesn’t sound too wise to me.

But maybe B6’s costs can still prosper at an even lower break even fare bases with lower yielding fare customers than AA DL & UA.

tphuang · Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:20 pm

https://crankyflier.com/2020/07/13/jetb ... se-at-lax/

In case anyone is wondering. Based on this part.
"Scott explained that JetBlue had wanted to make this move for a long time. It just couldn’t get more than the 2.5 gates it uses at LAX today… until COVID moved things around. JetBlue will be getting only one more gate now, but it says it has plans to double flights by 2025, so that would obviously require more. Scott said that they are expecting to be able to remain in Terminal 5 as they grow and others move off to the Midfield Satellite Concourse."
JetBlue is expecting to stay in T5 and get the gates from ULCCs as they move to MSC.

ldvaviation · Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:08 pm

tphuang wrote:
https://crankyflier.com/2020/07/13/jetblue-leaves-a-bad-situation-in-long-beach-for-something-worse-at-lax/

In case anyone is wondering. Based on this part.
"Scott explained that JetBlue had wanted to make this move for a long time. It just couldn’t get more than the 2.5 gates it uses at LAX today… until COVID moved things around. JetBlue will be getting only one more gate now, but it says it has plans to double flights by 2025, so that would obviously require more. Scott said that they are expecting to be able to remain in Terminal 5 as they grow and others move off to the Midfield Satellite Concourse."
JetBlue is expecting to stay in T5 and get the gates from ULCCs as they move to MSC.

Only one more gate now?
Expecting?
Is this like expecting to get a bunch of LHR slots from the airport?

... I thought there was a plan.

bpat777 · Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:18 pm

ldvaviation wrote:
tphuang wrote:
https://crankyflier.com/2020/07/13/jetblue-leaves-a-bad-situation-in-long-beach-for-something-worse-at-lax/

In case anyone is wondering. Based on this part.
"Scott explained that JetBlue had wanted to make this move for a long time. It just couldn’t get more than the 2.5 gates it uses at LAX today… until COVID moved things around. JetBlue will be getting only one more gate now, but it says it has plans to double flights by 2025, so that would obviously require more. Scott said that they are expecting to be able to remain in Terminal 5 as they grow and others move off to the Midfield Satellite Concourse."
JetBlue is expecting to stay in T5 and get the gates from ULCCs as they move to MSC.

Only one more gate now?
Expecting?
Is this like expecting to get a bunch of LHR slots from the airport?

... I thought there was a plan.

That's how B6 seems to operate.
I'd be surprised to see this LAX focus city go on for more than 3 yrs.

KlimaBXsst · Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:13 pm

The other thing that is WONDERFUL, is JetBlue is going to hire a bunch of new employees at LAX, and

those moving or commuting from LGB to work will most likely be getting a cost of living raise. (;

Hope this does not hurt JetBlues carbon off offset credits to horribly.

I am sure JetBlue is going to take a major hit in this virtual social currency enviro-climate reality. Any idea how many stand to be hired? Hmm

wnflyguy · Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:43 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
The other thing that is WONDERFUL, is JetBlue is going to hire a bunch of new employees at LAX, and

those moving or commuting from LGB to work will most likely be getting a cost of living raise. (;

Hope this does not hurt JetBlues carbon off offset credits to horribly.

I am sure JetBlue is going to take a major hit in this virtual social currency enviro-climate reality. Any idea how many stand to be hired? Hmm

From the crew meeting at LGB Zero outside employment opportunity since their offerings the stations like BUR and other Cities that are being outsourced to a 3ed party .So only internal employment Self relocation opportunity being offered at LAX in October and these numbers are limited also.

Flyguy

tphuang · Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:35 pm

ldvaviation wrote:
tphuang wrote:
https://crankyflier.com/2020/07/13/jetblue-leaves-a-bad-situation-in-long-beach-for-something-worse-at-lax/

In case anyone is wondering. Based on this part.
"Scott explained that JetBlue had wanted to make this move for a long time. It just couldn’t get more than the 2.5 gates it uses at LAX today… until COVID moved things around. JetBlue will be getting only one more gate now, but it says it has plans to double flights by 2025, so that would obviously require more. Scott said that they are expecting to be able to remain in Terminal 5 as they grow and others move off to the Midfield Satellite Concourse."
JetBlue is expecting to stay in T5 and get the gates from ULCCs as they move to MSC.

Only one more gate now?
Expecting?
Is this like expecting to get a bunch of LHR slots from the airport?

... I thought there was a plan.

Keep in mind that in the past when they made similar announcement about target number of flights at BOS and FLL, they signed contract for additional gates over a year later. So they only make these announcement when they are pretty sure they will actually get the necessary additional gate access. This would indicate to me that the talks are far along enough that they can make this announcement. It's hard to say that you already got the gates when HA still suing LAWA. Who knows what the status with NK. I assume that they would still need to continue to ramp up their gate usage at LAX in order to get those gates when ULCCs + HA get moved to MSC.

There was a lot of discussion earlier about where JetBlue is getting its gates. I think the answer is T-5. That would indicate AA is not getting them.

WN732 · Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:42 pm

I'm seriously wondering why B6 is going to do LAX-LAS. There are 8 carriers doing that already with fares being in the toilet. With that in mind, I am also perplexed why they are doing LAS and not PHX.

MrPeanut · Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:56 pm

aaway wrote:
MrPeanut wrote:
aaway wrote:

Of course on a segment basis, all carriers have a similar problem somewhere within their networks. What we don't know & what will not be disclosed publicly, is how certain routes performed on a contribution basis. Right WT? That will likely determine what ultimately stays vs. goes.

In theory yes. However, given a few large hurdles with operating out of LAX, I think the outcome is much clearer than it would normally be.

Without taking this too far off topic, frankly, the situation isn't so much about constraints at LAX, or of the Los Angeles market. This (AA) is a result of a balance sheet that no longer supports flying where the possible payoff is far into the future.

I would agree with your statement if AA was not able to get any hubs to work, but they can make CLT, DFW and DCA, work, but not JFK and LAX. Balance sheet is partial problem, but if they can make some hubs work, then the market plays a large contributing role.

The high operating costs and fragmented market share do not bode well for any airline at LAX. Combine these issues with an average 2019 airfare at LAX that was right at the national average and you have a problem.

JetBlue will struggle at LAX just like any other airline and will have to fly to those markets that play to their strengths. Its not an easy market for anyone.

tphuang · Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:38 am

MrPeanut wrote:
aaway wrote:
MrPeanut wrote:

In theory yes. However, given a few large hurdles with operating out of LAX, I think the outcome is much clearer than it would normally be.

Without taking this too far off topic, frankly, the situation isn't so much about constraints at LAX, or of the Los Angeles market. This (AA) is a result of a balance sheet that no longer supports flying where the possible payoff is far into the future.

I would agree with your statement if AA was not able to get any hubs to work, but they can make CLT, DFW and DCA, work, but not JFK and LAX. Balance sheet is partial problem, but if they can make some hubs work, then the market plays a large contributing role.

The high operating costs and fragmented market share do not bode well for any airline at LAX. Combine these issues with an average 2019 airfare at LAX that was right at the national average and you have a problem.

JetBlue will struggle at LAX just like any other airline and will have to fly to those markets that play to their strengths. Its not an easy market for anyone.

I have to agree with this. LAX will always be a tough market because its so fragmented. But it's also a market everyone needs to be in. JetBlue wants to be a major carrier so it needs to be in LAX. AA cutting back is giving JetBlue the real estate it needs. It's clear to me that JetBlue at this point expects to get most if not all of the gates at T5 or at least AA will not have exclusive access to more than the 5 gates. There is a cost to competing in LAX. When you are low on cash like AA, it's just no possible to stick around in the same capacity. And airlines with more capital will capitalize on that. Again, I would raise the possibility of combining AA and AS in T4/5 if AA ends up not needing 9 or 10 gats at T-5.

jfklganyc · Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:55 am

Poking around

JetBlue got “at least 4” additional gates in T5 to start out. That gives them some room to play initially

lightsaber · Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:08 am

jgklganyc,

4 additional gates, or 5.5 gates, is enough to move the focus city. Someone had their thinking cap on if they were able to acquire that many.

Mint does well at LAX and enough gates will grow the market.

But coach at LAX is a struggle.

Lightsaber

Nicknuzzii · Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:08 am

jfklganyc wrote:
Poking around

JetBlue got “at least 4” additional gates in T5 to start out. That gives them some room to play initially

Anyway you could “poke around” for the EWR gate situation lol? Right now February has 49 daily departures.

jfklganyc · Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:17 am

Nicknuzzii wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Poking around

JetBlue got “at least 4” additional gates in T5 to start out. That gives them some room to play initially

Anyway you could “poke around” for the EWR gate situation lol? Right now February has 49 daily departures.

EWR has 5 known gates. Plus AC isnt flying. Plus the United Express banjo is empty.

EWR is a race for gates and B6 will come out the winner

Nicknuzzii · Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:18 am

jfklganyc wrote:
Nicknuzzii wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Poking around

JetBlue got “at least 4” additional gates in T5 to start out. That gives them some room to play initially

Anyway you could “poke around” for the EWR gate situation lol? Right now February has 49 daily departures.

EWR has 5 known gates. Plus AC isnt flying. Plus the United Express banjo is empty.

EWR is a race for gates and B6 will come out the winner

I figured B6 could hop in and fill those UA gates. B6 also took over A29, I believe it is?

I’m not too familiar with B6 ops. but would assume they would need about 7 gates for this type of operation.

tphuang · Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:40 am

My guess, they already got the additional gate created originally slated for CUTE access. And once NK gets moved to MSC where they have space to grow, B6 get the 3 NK gates. The remaining 4 CUTE gates will become available once F9/G4/SY/HA moves to MSC. JetBlue shares the 4 CUTE gates with AA. Depending on how aggressively they use the gates, maybe they will get preferential access for more.

JetBlue really didn't want to move to MSC and did well here to be able to stay in T-5.

slcdeltarumd11 · Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:09 am

I would think Jetblue is gonna get gates here at EWR and LAX. Airlines are gonna be reducing flights and gates everywhere. This thing isn't going away anytime soon. UA,AA and DL will have so many international fights that can't fly for so long jetblue will be able to get gate space if they are willing to use them. Thru any crazy situation comes opportunities, and jetblue thinks it has that to expand in some congested cities. I think they have a great chance, they are very well know in both markets.

strfyr51 · Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:16 am

Blueknows wrote:
B6 expanding EWR,PHL,LAX,MCO,FLL(transcon). They are looking to become the premium transcontinental airline. They also are going to add PVR & SJD(was supposed to be LGB until they shot down INTL)
They want to force UA to spend money in EWR. DL is pulling SEA hub, and moving to MIA to build hub to Latin America with LATAM. America is dehubing LAX & moving flight to SEA. They are wrapping up with AS in codeshare to have them cover west coast for them. UA is going to be interesting to watch. B6 is not looking to codeshare AA/AS. On multiple calls they’ve mentioned how it’s to expensive and give to
Much revenue away. B6 will add LAX-HNL...question is HA...can’t wait to see how this plays out

and they'll be the "Umpty 9th" carrier to fly California-Hawaii. but since Hawaiian also flies the A321 they should be in good company if they make a deal with HA to support them in Hawaii.

strfyr51 · Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:26 am

wnflyguy wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
The other thing that is WONDERFUL, is JetBlue is going to hire a bunch of new employees at LAX, and

those moving or commuting from LGB to work will most likely be getting a cost of living raise. (;

Hope this does not hurt JetBlues carbon off offset credits to horribly.

I am sure JetBlue is going to take a major hit in this virtual social currency enviro-climate reality. Any idea how many stand to be hired? Hmm

From the crew meeting at LGB Zero outside employment opportunity since their offerings the stations like BUR and other Cities that are being outsourced to a 3ed party .So only internal employment Self relocation opportunity being offered at LAX in October and these numbers are limited also.

Flyguy

COLA for Long Beach to move to LAX? What for? The Long Beach and LAX areas are nearly the same with Long Beach being more expensive. There are loads of properties near LAX.
''?

LAXintl · Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:47 am

strfyr51 wrote:
COLA for Long Beach to move to LAX? What for? The Long Beach and LAX areas are nearly the same with Long Beach being more expensive. There are loads of properties near LAX.
''?

Los Angeles has living wage ordinance at the airport -- min base hourly rate $16.50 for employees with health benefits and $22.05 for those without as of July 1.

asteriskceo · Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:13 am

strfyr51 wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
The other thing that is WONDERFUL, is JetBlue is going to hire a bunch of new employees at LAX, and

those moving or commuting from LGB to work will most likely be getting a cost of living raise. (;

Hope this does not hurt JetBlues carbon off offset credits to horribly.

I am sure JetBlue is going to take a major hit in this virtual social currency enviro-climate reality. Any idea how many stand to be hired? Hmm

From the crew meeting at LGB Zero outside employment opportunity since their offerings the stations like BUR and other Cities that are being outsourced to a 3ed party .So only internal employment Self relocation opportunity being offered at LAX in October and these numbers are limited also.

Flyguy

COLA for Long Beach to move to LAX? What for? The Long Beach and LAX areas are nearly the same with Long Beach being more expensive. There are loads of properties near LAX.
''?

I don't think Long Beach is more expensive than LA.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

aaway · Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:11 pm

MrPeanut wrote:
aaway wrote:
MrPeanut wrote:

In theory yes. However, given a few large hurdles with operating out of LAX, I think the outcome is much clearer than it would normally be.

Without taking this too far off topic, frankly, the situation isn't so much about constraints at LAX, or of the Los Angeles market. This (AA) is a result of a balance sheet that no longer supports flying where the possible payoff is far into the future.

I would agree with your statement if AA was not able to get any hubs to work, but they can make CLT, DFW and DCA, work, but not JFK and LAX. Balance sheet is partial problem, but if they can make some hubs work, then the market plays a large contributing role.

The high operating costs and fragmented market share do not bode well for any airline at LAX. Combine these issues with an average 2019 airfare at LAX that was right at the national average and you have a problem.

Your tone is reasonable, the context is off. Comparing LAX to DFW, CLT & DCA is non analogous for various reasons. I think the more analogous comparison (thus more apt) would be UA and SFO. At the time of the PA Pacific Network purchase, SFO was similarly fragmented, relatively speaking, both domestically & internationally. SFO "suffers" from a similar handicap in terms of geography vis-a-vis a U.S - Asia flows perspective. Historically, UA has been just as high-cost as AA. SFO became a high cost facility as redevelopment plans were implemented there.

UA maintained a singular focus despite exigent and vagary economic cycles & factors. Buried within this context, UA also opportunistically recapitalized its balance sheet twice (three times if you include the ESOP reorganization of the 90s), thus providing UA enough balance sheet runway to achieve whatever their IRR for SFO and become dominant in that city.

To circle this back to AA @ LAX, I think the Plane Banter interview with Vasu Raja is somewhat telling - and a height of duplicity - in that he loathes the days when AA as AMR was cost focused, but now laments the current cost issues plaguing AA as AAG. The AA LAX T-pac plan was crafted under the stewardship of the AMR Corp. management. This flying plan was circulated to Allied Pilots (APA) when Horton, et. al. was trying to sell the stand alone plan for post-bankruptcy. Ultimately, it was adopted by the succession management.

If AMR stand alone had been approved, within a context of what has transpired then-to-now, AA would be leaner and have a better balance sheet to probably endure a further development of LAX despite the current headwinds.

DL appears to be the proxy for this thesis now. Time will tell.

aaway · Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:30 pm

tphuang wrote:
It's clear to me that JetBlue at this point expects to get most if not all of the gates at T5 or at least AA will not have exclusive access to more than the 5 gates. There is a cost to competing in LAX. When you are low on cash like AA, it's just no possible to stick around in the same capacity. And airlines with more capital will capitalize on that. Again, I would raise the possibility of combining AA and AS in T4/5 if AA ends up not needing 9 or 10 gats at T-5.

I'll agree with a potential AA/AS colocation. I think B6 at T-5 is interim pending their further development and other moves. If their south-of-border flying comes to fruition, you're likely looking at two cycles of activity: morning departures to/afternoon arrivals from Mexico; redeyes to/morning arrivals from Central America. Unless the logistics of remote operations are acceptable to the management, I think contact gate FIS access will be important in that scenario. T-5 no longer provides that.

So, I'd suggest T-6 if there is an AA/AS colocation. The alternative is the west wing of T-3 for ticketing/domestic baggage claim and MSC for aircraft ops.

Brianpr3 · Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:34 pm

While i am here What is FIS?

aaway · Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:40 pm

Brianpr3 wrote:
While i am here What is FIS?

Federal Inspection Services - for arriving international passengers.

aaway · Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:43 pm

dupe post

Tack · Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:16 pm

aaway wrote:
tphuang wrote:
It's clear to me that JetBlue at this point expects to get most if not all of the gates at T5 or at least AA will not have exclusive access to more than the 5 gates. There is a cost to competing in LAX. When you are low on cash like AA, it's just no possible to stick around in the same capacity. And airlines with more capital will capitalize on that. Again, I would raise the possibility of combining AA and AS in T4/5 if AA ends up not needing 9 or 10 gats at T-5.

I'll agree with a potential AA/AS colocation. I think B6 at T-5 is interim pending their further development and other moves. If their south-of-border flying comes to fruition, you're likely looking at two cycles of activity: morning departures to/afternoon arrivals from Mexico; redeyes to/morning arrivals from Central America. Unless the logistics of remote operations are acceptable to the management, I think contact gate FIS access will be important in that scenario. T-5 no longer provides that.

So, I'd suggest T-6 if there is an AA/AS colocation. The alternative is the west wing of T-3 for ticketing/domestic baggage claim and MSC for aircraft ops.

I don’t see AS giving up T6. They tried the co-locating with AA back in the late 80’s- early 90’s. Even though there was no partnership, It was a disaster coordinating gates with AA. Some days we had to operate almost half of our 12 flight a day schedule via a bus op out of AA’s Super-bay hanger. Once in T6 AS built a ramp tower and committed a ton of $ to make it what they wanted. Including getting FIS. I’ve been out for about 2 years, but at the time I left, AS had no desire to lose their ability to control their own terminal. And certainly not let it go to a competitor. Lol, nope. I’m going to say B6 will get what it gets in T5 and be happy as hell to get it.

Tack · Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:22 pm

Tack wrote:
aaway wrote:
tphuang wrote:
It's clear to me that JetBlue at this point expects to get most if not all of the gates at T5 or at least AA will not have exclusive access to more than the 5 gates. There is a cost to competing in LAX. When you are low on cash like AA, it's just no possible to stick around in the same capacity. And airlines with more capital will capitalize on that. Again, I would raise the possibility of combining AA and AS in T4/5 if AA ends up not needing 9 or 10 gats at T-5.

I'll agree with a potential AA/AS colocation. I think B6 at T-5 is interim pending their further development and other moves. If their south-of-border flying comes to fruition, you're likely looking at two cycles of activity: morning departures to/afternoon arrivals from Mexico; redeyes to/morning arrivals from Central America. Unless the logistics of remote operations are acceptable to the management, I think contact gate FIS access will be important in that scenario. T-5 no longer provides that.

So, I'd suggest T-6 if there is an AA/AS colocation. The alternative is the west wing of T-3 for ticketing/domestic baggage claim and MSC for aircraft ops.

I don’t see AS giving up T6. They tried the co-locating in T4 with AA back in the late 80’s- early 90’s. Even though there was no partnership, It was a disaster coordinating gates with AA. Some days we had to operate almost half of our 12 flight a day schedule via a bus op out of AA’s Super-bay hanger. Once in T6 AS built a ramp tower and committed a ton of $ to make it what they wanted. Including getting FIS. I’ve been out for about 2 years, but at the time I left, AS had no desire to lose their ability to control their own terminal. And they certainly won’t let it go to a competitor. Lol, nope. I’m going to say B6 will get what it gets in T5 and be happy as hell to get it.

Tack · Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:23 pm

Tack wrote:
aaway wrote:
tphuang wrote:
It's clear to me that JetBlue at this point expects to get most if not all of the gates at T5 or at least AA will not have exclusive access to more than the 5 gates. There is a cost to competing in LAX. When you are low on cash like AA, it's just no possible to stick around in the same capacity. And airlines with more capital will capitalize on that. Again, I would raise the possibility of combining AA and AS in T4/5 if AA ends up not needing 9 or 10 gats at T-5.

I'll agree with a potential AA/AS colocation. I think B6 at T-5 is interim pending their further development and other moves. If their south-of-border flying comes to fruition, you're likely looking at two cycles of activity: morning departures to/afternoon arrivals from Mexico; redeyes to/morning arrivals from Central America. Unless the logistics of remote operations are acceptable to the management, I think contact gate FIS access will be important in that scenario. T-5 no longer provides that.

So, I'd suggest T-6 if there is an AA/AS colocation. The alternative is the west wing of T-3 for ticketing/domestic baggage claim and MSC for aircraft ops.

I don’t see AS giving up T6. They tried the co-locating in T4 with AA back in the late 80’s- early 90’s. Even though there was no partnership, It was a disaster coordinating gates with AA. Some days we had to operate almost half of our 12 flight a day schedule via a bus op out of AA’s Super-bay hanger. Once in T6 AS built a ramp tower and committed a ton of $ to make it what they wanted. Including getting FIS. I’ve been out for about 2 years, but at the time I left, AS had no desire to lose their ability to control their own terminal. And they certainly won’t let it go to a competitor. Lol, nope. I’m going to say B6 will get what it gets in T5 and be happy as hell to get it.

tzadik · Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:26 pm

Tack wrote:
I don’t see AS giving up T6. They tried the co-locating with AA back in the late 80’s- early 90’s. Even though there was no partnership, It was a disaster coordinating gates with AA. Some days we had to operate almost half of our 12 flight a day schedule via a bus op out of AA’s Super-bay hanger. Once in T6 AS built a ramp tower and committed a ton of $ to make it what they wanted. Including getting FIS. I’ve been out for about 2 years, but at the time I left, AS had no desire to lose their ability to control their own terminal. And certainly not let it go to a competitor. Lol, nope. I’m going to say B6 will get what it gets in T5 and be happy as hell to get it.

I would have to agree and this is getting out of control. So now we're being presented with scenarios in which multiple large airlines move terminals all because B6 (an airline of very little significance on the west coast) wants to increase its daily departures? Maybe NK will move to HHR so B6 can have even more space.

bpat777 · Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:32 pm

tzadik wrote:
Tack wrote:
I don’t see AS giving up T6. They tried the co-locating with AA back in the late 80’s- early 90’s. Even though there was no partnership, It was a disaster coordinating gates with AA. Some days we had to operate almost half of our 12 flight a day schedule via a bus op out of AA’s Super-bay hanger. Once in T6 AS built a ramp tower and committed a ton of $ to make it what they wanted. Including getting FIS. I’ve been out for about 2 years, but at the time I left, AS had no desire to lose their ability to control their own terminal. And certainly not let it go to a competitor. Lol, nope. I’m going to say B6 will get what it gets in T5 and be happy as hell to get it.

I would have to agree and this is getting out of control. So now we're being presented with scenarios in which multiple large airlines move terminals all because B6 (an airline of very little significance on the west coast) wants to increase its daily departures? Maybe NK will move to HHR so B6 can have even more space.

I tend to agree with you. Some of the members on here give B6 way too much clout.

tphuang · Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:59 pm

bpat777 wrote:
tzadik wrote:
Tack wrote:
I don’t see AS giving up T6. They tried the co-locating with AA back in the late 80’s- early 90’s. Even though there was no partnership, It was a disaster coordinating gates with AA. Some days we had to operate almost half of our 12 flight a day schedule via a bus op out of AA’s Super-bay hanger. Once in T6 AS built a ramp tower and committed a ton of $ to make it what they wanted. Including getting FIS. I’ve been out for about 2 years, but at the time I left, AS had no desire to lose their ability to control their own terminal. And certainly not let it go to a competitor. Lol, nope. I’m going to say B6 will get what it gets in T5 and be happy as hell to get it.

I would have to agree and this is getting out of control. So now we're being presented with scenarios in which multiple large airlines move terminals all because B6 (an airline of very little significance on the west coast) wants to increase its daily departures? Maybe NK will move to HHR so B6 can have even more space.

I tend to agree with you. Some of the members on here give B6 way too much clout.

Take it easy. I am simply suggesting that as and aa might want to colocate and kick out JetBlue. Have you thought about that? JetBlue is happy to be at t5. They would move to any of the non remote terminals if that meant more space and gate access.

Tack · Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:07 am

tphuang wrote:
bpat777 wrote:
tzadik wrote:

I would have to agree and this is getting out of control. So now we're being presented with scenarios in which multiple large airlines move terminals all because B6 (an airline of very little significance on the west coast) wants to increase its daily departures? Maybe NK will move to HHR so B6 can have even more space.

I tend to agree with you. Some of the members on here give B6 way too much clout.

Take it easy. I am simply suggesting that as and aa might want to colocate and kick out JetBlue. Have you thought about that? JetBlue is happy to be at t5. They would move to any of the non remote terminals if that meant more space and gate access.

Hey it’s a suggestion. But not only have I not thought about it, I’d wager that AS hasn’t given it much of a thought either. LAX can be tough market to get a toe hold in. I just don’t see any airline that has some control on a terminal and gates giving that up unless they’re upgrading ala DL.

tzadik · Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:09 am

tphuang wrote:
Take it easy. I am simply suggesting that as and aa might want to colocate and kick out JetBlue. Have you thought about that? JetBlue is happy to be at t5. They would move to any of the non remote terminals if that meant more space and gate access.

I would be shocked if B6 ended up with a square inch more than 5 gates coming outta this. 53B-58 would be my guess. AA will fight to the death over that space and I certainly wouldn't count NK out as they're WELL positioned to make moves coming out of this.

malaysia · Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:15 am

LAXintl wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
COLA for Long Beach to move to LAX? What for? The Long Beach and LAX areas are nearly the same with Long Beach being more expensive. There are loads of properties near LAX.
''?

Los Angeles has living wage ordinance at the airport -- min base hourly rate $16.50 for employees with health benefits and $22.05 for those without as of July 1.

You mean $16.50 with a company that will offer health benefits, but you still have to deduct the benefits even if they are not decent price. $22.05 is for a company that has no company sponsored health insurance options right, I know some who took some airport job at LAX and already has insurance at another job outside and opted out and company insurance was not free, but still makes less than $22. Maybe I am thinking of some airport ordnances that let you make more money if you opt-out of company offered health insurance, I think that is SFO cause health insurance is to be provided for free to the employee only, so if you somehow have another plan somewhere, the employer can bump up your minimum wage since you did not select the free insurance, I guess not the case at LAX.

I can see how it may benefit some B6 agents from LGB if they made less than $16.50

Tack · Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:37 am

Tack wrote:
tphuang wrote:
bpat777 wrote:

I tend to agree with you. Some of the members on here give B6 way too much clout.

Take it easy. I am simply suggesting that as and aa might want to colocate and kick out JetBlue. Have you thought about that? JetBlue is happy to be at t5. They would move to any of the non remote terminals if that meant more space and gate access.

Hey it’s a suggestion. But not only have I not thought about it, I’d wager that AS hasn’t given it much of a thought either. LAX can be a tough market to get a toe hold in. I just don’t see any airline that has some control on a terminal and gates giving that up unless they’re upgrading ala DL.

CobaltScar · Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:24 am

malaysia wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
COLA for Long Beach to move to LAX? What for? The Long Beach and LAX areas are nearly the same with Long Beach being more expensive. There are loads of properties near LAX.
''?

Los Angeles has living wage ordinance at the airport -- min base hourly rate $16.50 for employees with health benefits and $22.05 for those without as of July 1.

You mean $16.50 with a company that will offer health benefits, but you still have to deduct the benefits even if they are not decent price. $22.05 is for a company that has no company sponsored health insurance options right, I know some who took some airport job at LAX and already has insurance at another job outside and opted out and company insurance was not free, but still makes less than $22. Maybe I am thinking of some airport ordnances that let you make more money if you opt-out of company offered health insurance, I think that is SFO cause health insurance is to be provided for free to the employee only, so if you somehow have another plan somewhere, the employer can bump up your minimum wage since you did not select the free insurance, I guess not the case at LAX.

I can see how it may benefit some B6 agents from LGB if they made less than $16.50

How does that work for part time employees that don't qualify for the company sponsored health plan?

LAXintl · Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:50 am

CobaltScar wrote:

How does that work for part time employees that don't qualify for the company sponsored health plan?

LAX Living Wage makes no distinction. The ordinance is meant to encourage employers to provide all their employees with health care. If employees are not given health care by their employer, the minimum cash wage at LAX would be $22.05.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net