with all respect then, it's just people talking? I mean, Belize and Costa Rica had been coming up at Alaska town halls since the early 2000's. In fact, when Alaska started flying to BOS, everyone started saying that AS was looking at BOS-LHR. It was ridiculous, but that's what crews do - we talk a lot of crap and spread it around like it's the gospel truth. When management says they're looking at Hawaii on the long term then I'll believe it. Right now, I just don't get it. There are currently 7 carriers flying to Hawaii from LAX (UA, AA, DL, WN, HA, AS, SY). Does JetBlue just want to light money on fire?

ASFlyer wrote:

with all respect then, it's just people talking? I mean, Belize and Costa Rica had been coming up at Alaska town halls since the early 2000's. In fact, when Alaska started flying to BOS, everyone started saying that AS was looking at BOS-LHR. It was ridiculous, but that's what crews do - we talk a lot of crap and spread it around like it's the gospel truth. When management says they're looking at Hawaii on the long term then I'll believe it. Right now, I just don't get it. There are currently 7 carriers flying to Hawaii from LAX (UA, AA, DL, WN, HA, AS, SY). Does JetBlue just want to light money on fire?

Lots of nuggets have been dropped here, but I don’t think many people are inclined to post specifics from internal company communications. Regarding the 7 carriers flying that route, I don’t think JetBlue minds competition, unless of course it causes avg fares to be real low across the board.

Frankly I think all of this talk about PPT is just straight up nonsense. Sure, you can look at range and exclaim, "Wow! The LR and XLR can both reach PPT from LAX!" However, the key issue is that a key part of the equation is missing, which is ETOPS. The 321neo currently is certified for etops 180... no issues for TATL but when you start to look at the pacific, especially south pacific, things start to go haywire.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ppt-sfo%2F ... U=nm&E=180

While SFO may be doable, LAX simply doesn't seem like a good option when you are burning more fuel than competitors (since you cannot follow the great circle route) and your plane has a higher CASM (138 seats on an LR is not exactly a leisure-oriented config). Not ideal for PPT.

And even HI might be quite some time away, I think. Of course, the earlier the better, but can/will they certify the classic a321ceos (with mint) for etops 180? That would be the best way to start HI service without having to use a much lower-CASM LD or LR. And even better, the 2-2 config in J would be appreciated by couples.

seatown1 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Also, they may want to order a widebody aircraft by 2025 if the A321LR/XLR flying is going well. For example, it'd be hard for them to try JFK-NRT or JFK-TLV with XLR. I can see VFR flying to sub-sahara Africa to be a goldmine out of JFK, since there really is not many strong domestic carriers there.

DL covers DKR, ACC, and LOS. What other market within range of the XLR would be worth serving with a mint-heavy aircraft?

I don't have O&D numbers from NYC to these places, but I would imagine there are probably a couple of more markets that can be served with both VFR and some business demand. ABV would be one. Something like BOS-RAI could work for both VFR and leisure. DL serves DSS/ACC/LOS with 767 and A330s. And from what I've seen and heard, they make a bunch of money on them. Even the Y fares are quite high. It should be a lot easier to serve these markets year round with daily service on A321XLR vs A330. JetBlue makes a lot of VFR markets work that DL cannot.

ASFlyer wrote:

with all respect then, it's just people talking? I mean, Belize and Costa Rica had been coming up at Alaska town halls since the early 2000's. In fact, when Alaska started flying to BOS, everyone started saying that AS was looking at BOS-LHR. It was ridiculous, but that's what crews do - we talk a lot of crap and spread it around like it's the gospel truth. When management says they're looking at Hawaii on the long term then I'll believe it. Right now, I just don't get it. There are currently 7 carriers flying to Hawaii from LAX (UA, AA, DL, WN, HA, AS, SY). Does JetBlue just want to light money on fire?

I don't know why it's so hard to believe. It really isn't a tougher market than some of the other ones they compete in. I think you are thinking about this from the view of AS.

You have to put yourself in the shoes of a JetBlue route planner. Unlike AS and WN, flying a lot of intra-west coast stuff for B6 is lighting money on fire. There is no way that LAX-HNL can be harder for them than LAX-SEA/PDX. So, they only want to serve the largest west coast markets from LAX with somewhat competitive schedule. They don't have a lot of ff or corporate contract in LA area. The best way for them to win local market share is to serve the popular leisure destinations. They look around and see that mint prints money everywhere and is very popular with high end leisure travelers. In fact, LAX-HNL/OGG is exactly the type of market mint should do well in. They'd easily have the best J product in the market. Just take a look at what the competition is providing.

On top of that, HNL/OGG is a very popular vacation destinations for people across the country, so it would also allow them to connect more passengers through LAX. B6 cannot rely on only O&D to make stuff like RIC/CHS/JAX-LAX work. They need to also connect some passengers to Hawaii and SJD/PVR.

sfojvjets wrote:

And even HI might be quite some time away, I think. Of course, the earlier the better, but can/will they certify the classic a321ceos (with mint) for etops 180? That would be the best way to start HI service without having to use a much lower-CASM LD or LR. And even better, the 2-2 config in J would be appreciated by couples.

I don't think they will certify A321CEO mint for ETOPS. Keep in mind, A321CEO mint already has pretty good CASM (only 6% higher than A320). A321LD probably has 5 to 10% lower CASM than A321CEO mint(1 more passenger + 15% less fuel burn). So, it will have very competitive CASM vs competition and also be a huge revenue driver. Of course, the next year will be very NEA focused. They've said that 2023 is when they start building up LAX. There really aren't that many destinations out of LAX that make more sense than HNL at this point.

I think it'd be interesting to see what happens to their LAX gate situation. To me, LAX is just a more competitive market than SFO. If LAWA dumps them in an unappealing location like MSC, you might see them shifting west coast resources to SFO.

I also wonder if they could use their A220's to do SNA-HNL/OGG That's a niche market for sure, but lots of $$$ in orange county and definitely some demand from people willing to pay more to avoid the drive to LAX

MKIAZ wrote:

I also wonder if they could use their A220's to do SNA-HNL/OGG That's a niche market for sure, but lots of $$$ in orange county and definitely some demand from people willing to pay more to avoid the drive to LAX

I’m not too sure B6 would get a lot of slots when/if they enter SNA. New entrants usually get 3 slot pairs so I’d rather see 3x daily SNA-SFO (only 1 A220 would be needed to do all of the rotations) and then SNA pax can connect onwards on SFO-HNL/OGG.

Once there are more A220s available (and if B6 get more than 3 slots) it would be nice to maybe see SNA-JFK/BOS or SNA-FLL.

Here’s a question though: would a more premium-heavy config like an A321LD be able to land/take off from SNA’s short runway? I believe NK uses A320NEOs from SNA. I could be wrong.

hbernal1 wrote:

MKIAZ wrote:

I also wonder if they could use their A220's to do SNA-HNL/OGG That's a niche market for sure, but lots of $$$ in orange county and definitely some demand from people willing to pay more to avoid the drive to LAX

I’m not too sure B6 would get a lot of slots when/if they enter SNA. New entrants usually get 3 slot pairs so I’d rather see 3x daily SNA-SFO (only 1 A220 would be needed to do all of the rotations) and then SNA pax can connect onwards on SFO-HNL/OGG.

Once there are more A220s available (and if B6 get more than 3 slots) it would be nice to maybe see SNA-JFK/BOS or SNA-FLL.

Here’s a question though: would a more premium-heavy config like an A321LD be able to land/take off from SNA’s short runway? I believe NK uses A320NEOs from SNA. I could be wrong.

AA will be using the A321T SNA-JFK next month. https://onemileatatime.com/american-air ... ge-county/

A B6 A321LD could do it, but likely with a very large payload hit. Large enough that it won’t happen is my guess. I’d love to be wrong though.

tphuang wrote:

seatown1 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Also, they may want to order a widebody aircraft by 2025 if the A321LR/XLR flying is going well. For example, it'd be hard for them to try JFK-NRT or JFK-TLV with XLR. I can see VFR flying to sub-sahara Africa to be a goldmine out of JFK, since there really is not many strong domestic carriers there.

DL covers DKR, ACC, and LOS. What other market within range of the XLR would be worth serving with a mint-heavy aircraft?

I don't have O&D numbers from NYC to these places, but I would imagine there are probably a couple of more markets that can be served with both VFR and some business demand. ABV would be one. Something like BOS-RAI could work for both VFR and leisure. DL serves DSS/ACC/LOS with 767 and A330s. And from what I've seen and heard, they make a bunch of money on them. Even the Y fares are quite high. It should be a lot easier to serve these markets year round with daily service on A321XLR vs A330. JetBlue makes a lot of VFR markets work that DL cannot.

ASFlyer wrote:

with all respect then, it's just people talking? I mean, Belize and Costa Rica had been coming up at Alaska town halls since the early 2000's. In fact, when Alaska started flying to BOS, everyone started saying that AS was looking at BOS-LHR. It was ridiculous, but that's what crews do - we talk a lot of crap and spread it around like it's the gospel truth. When management says they're looking at Hawaii on the long term then I'll believe it. Right now, I just don't get it. There are currently 7 carriers flying to Hawaii from LAX (UA, AA, DL, WN, HA, AS, SY). Does JetBlue just want to light money on fire?

I don't know why it's so hard to believe. It really isn't a tougher market than some of the other ones they compete in. I think you are thinking about this from the view of AS.

You have to put yourself in the shoes of a JetBlue route planner. Unlike AS and WN, flying a lot of intra-west coast stuff for B6 is lighting money on fire. There is no way that LAX-HNL can be harder for them than LAX-SEA/PDX. So, they only want to serve the largest west coast markets from LAX with somewhat competitive schedule. They don't have a lot of ff or corporate contract in LA area. The best way for them to win local market share is to serve the popular leisure destinations. They look around and see that mint prints money everywhere and is very popular with high end leisure travelers. In fact, LAX-HNL/OGG is exactly the type of market mint should do well in. They'd easily have the best J product in the market. Just take a look at what the competition is providing.

On top of that, HNL/OGG is a very popular vacation destinations for people across the country, so it would also allow them to connect more passengers through LAX. B6 cannot rely on only O&D to make stuff like RIC/CHS/JAX-LAX work. They need to also connect some passengers to Hawaii and SJD/PVR.

sfojvjets wrote:

And even HI might be quite some time away, I think. Of course, the earlier the better, but can/will they certify the classic a321ceos (with mint) for etops 180? That would be the best way to start HI service without having to use a much lower-CASM LD or LR. And even better, the 2-2 config in J would be appreciated by couples.

I don't think they will certify A321CEO mint for ETOPS. Keep in mind, A321CEO mint already has pretty good CASM (only 6% higher than A320). A321LD probably has 5 to 10% lower CASM than A321CEO mint(1 more passenger + 15% less fuel burn). So, it will have very competitive CASM vs competition and also be a huge revenue driver. Of course, the next year will be very NEA focused. They've said that 2023 is when they start building up LAX. There really aren't that many destinations out of LAX that make more sense than HNL at this point.

I think it'd be interesting to see what happens to their LAX gate situation. To me, LAX is just a more competitive market than SFO. If LAWA dumps them in an unappealing location like MSC, you might see them shifting west coast resources to SFO.

Hawaii is an obvious Mint add from both LAX and SFO. Good CASM on the A321LDs should also mean competitive pricing in Y.

Now that you mention LAX gates, how many gates are JetBlue using at LAX? Today they’re operating 35 flights and yesterday was 37 so they need to be using 4 gates at least. If they want to double in size to 75 flights they’ll probably need 4 more.

I also was looking at some LAX traffic reports and it seems to me that B6 are on track to move up to #6 ahead of NK this year. I’m not sure how B6 ranks at LAX in terms of ASM.

What is the fascination with LAX-HNL??? There’s already 7 carriers on the route and the yields suck. B6 should really focus on niche markets that will actually make them money, not just jump onto a route because basically almost every other major US airline is on it with high frequencies, plus a lot of seats being reward redemptions too. Hence why I brought up PPT and RAR as alternative niche markets that carry high premium demand and have little competition. Hawaii especially HNL isn’t the only market in the Pacific.

nine4nine wrote:

What is the fascination with LAX-HNL??? There’s already 7 carriers on the route and the yields suck. B6 should really focus on niche markets that will actually make them money, not just jump onto a route because basically almost every other major US airline is on it with high frequencies, plus a lot of seats being reward redemptions too. Hence why I brought up PPT and RAR as alternative niche markets that carry high premium demand and have little competition. Hawaii especially HNL isn’t the only market in the Pacific.

The reason a lot of seats are reward redemptions is because of the existence of loyal pax. That is the whole point. Not every route is a zero sum equation. You need a network that people want to redeem their points on, and if you are trying to build a large customer base in SoCal or the Bay Area you need Hawaii on the map. How is this so unbelievable to you?

tphuang wrote:

seatown1 wrote:

I don't have O&D numbers from NYC to these places, but I would imagine there are probably a couple of more markets that can be served with both VFR and some business demand. ABV would be one. Something like BOS-RAI could work for both VFR and leisure. DL serves DSS/ACC/LOS with 767 and A330s. And from what I've seen and heard, they make a bunch of money on them. Even the Y fares are quite high. It should be a lot easier to serve these markets year round with daily service on A321XLR vs A330. JetBlue makes a lot of VFR markets work that DL cannot..

I get that, but I feel like those cities might become marginal considering the cargo capacity would effectively be zero on the XLR coming out of those markets. Africa is a tough nut to crack, and Jetblue's CASM advantage wouldn't be that great on an aircraft that is so premium heavy.

Lol… PPT, HNL…

No, as demand rebounds JetBlue’s singular focus will likely be their once in a lifetime opportunity to utilize slots via the NEA and solidify their position in JFK, EWR, and LGA. After that , refocus on Boston and incremental growth in LAX to insure they get the gates they requested from LAWA. XLRs and LRs will be used in the coming years to grow a European franchise. The amount of resources and logistics required to make PPT a reality isn’t going to happen, IMO.

trueblew wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

What is the fascination with LAX-HNL??? There’s already 7 carriers on the route and the yields suck. B6 should really focus on niche markets that will actually make them money, not just jump onto a route because basically almost every other major US airline is on it with high frequencies, plus a lot of seats being reward redemptions too. Hence why I brought up PPT and RAR as alternative niche markets that carry high premium demand and have little competition. Hawaii especially HNL isn’t the only market in the Pacific.

The reason a lot of seats are reward redemptions is because of the existence of loyal pax. That is the whole point. Not every route is a zero sum equation. You need a network that people want to redeem their points on, and if you are trying to build a large customer base in SoCal or the Bay Area you need Hawaii on the map. How is this so unbelievable to you?

Maybe because the route is extremely low yielding, 7 carriers already on it and WN is going all in on Hawaii. Is it really worth throwing 1 or 2 aircraft on a whole day routing, make little $$ when you can just have your loyal flyers codeshare on AA. Now it would be a different story if B6 served the islands from a secondary market outside of the LAX-HNL horde. Sorry but given B6 lackluster presence out west I don’t think it makes sense for them to join the Hawaii party from LA when they need to connect more dots out west and build more presence and a loyal pax base in CA. And if it’s about connections from the east coast, B6 pax have the opportunity to codeshare on HA from BOS,JFK,AUS, and MCO.

hbernal1 wrote:

Now that you mention LAX gates, how many gates are JetBlue using at LAX? Today they’re operating 35 flights and yesterday was 37 so they need to be using 4 gates at least. If they want to double in size to 75 flights they’ll probably need 4 more.

They had 19 departures out of SFO yesterday. They used B4/5/6/7/8 out of Harvey Milk terminal + 2 flights out of internal terminal. Nobody else used those gates. Plenty of gate availability there.

Out of LAX, they used 50,51B,55A,56,57,78,59 yesterday. I think 50, 55A and 59 are their gates. 56 gates are generally NK gates. 51A/51B/57/58 are CUTE gates. 57/58 are widebody gates mostly used by HA. They will be gone soon. 53A/B + 54A/B are the AA gates. 52 are the eagles nest gates
you can take a look at the current T-5 layout
https://www.flylax.com/-/media/flylax/t ... es/t5.ashx
vs 2017
https://i2.wp.com/moorewithmiles.com/wp ... .png?w=541

I think gate 57/58 are supposed to be reconfigured into narrowbody gates once HA moves out. Maybe that could add 2 gates. Where gate 50 is right now might be configurable into 2. IIRC from reading other threads, AA is suppose to have preferential access to 10 gates once their T-4 work is done. There could be as many as 8 other gates in T-5 after LAX does all the work. That would be enough for B6 to run their target operation. Ideally, B6 is just trying to avoid getting moved to MSC or have a split operation. SFO looks really appealing if they get exiled to MSC.

nine4nine wrote:

Maybe because the route is extremely low yielding, 7 carriers already on it and WN is going all in on Hawaii. Is it really worth throwing 1 or 2 aircraft on a whole day routing, make little $$ when you can just have your loyal flyers codeshare on AA. Now it would be a different story if B6 served the islands from a secondary market outside of the LAX-HNL horde. Sorry but given B6 lackluster presence out west I don’t think it makes sense for them to join the Hawaii party from LA when they need to connect more dots out west and build more presence and a loyal pax base in CA. And if it’s about connections from the east coast, B6 pax have the opportunity to codeshare on HA from BOS,JFK,AUS, and MCO.

HNL-LAX is not that low yielding. I see the cheapest O/W Y fare right now at $189 on most days in July and J fare to be over $600 for HA (the only carrier consistently offering lie flat).

If you look at BOS-LAX, the cheapest O/W fare is about $149 in most days in July and J fare to be $599. The flight time between the two routes are about the same. They make decent money on those BOS-LAX fare levels. I think they'd be happy with where HNL-LAX is yielding. 7 carriers may sound intimidating, but only a couple of them offer lie flat product. That's where mint makes a killing in. It's also the type of stuff that can win loyal customers.

I can't imagine B6 being more profitable than that on LAX-SEA/SMF/PHX. All routes they probably have to eventually operate if they want to have a presence in the west coast.

tphuang wrote:

hbernal1 wrote:

Now that you mention LAX gates, how many gates are JetBlue using at LAX? Today they’re operating 35 flights and yesterday was 37 so they need to be using 4 gates at least. If they want to double in size to 75 flights they’ll probably need 4 more.

They had 19 departures out of SFO yesterday. They used B4/5/6/7/8 out of Harvey Milk terminal + 2 flights out of internal terminal. Nobody else used those gates. Plenty of gate availability there.

Out of LAX, they used 50,51B,55A,56,57,78,59 yesterday. I think 50, 55A and 59 are their gates. 56 gates are generally NK gates. 51A/51B/57/58 are CUTE gates. 57/58 are widebody gates mostly used by HA. They will be gone soon. 53A/B + 54A/B are the AA gates. 52 are the eagles nest gates
you can take a look at the current T-5 layout
https://www.flylax.com/-/media/flylax/t ... es/t5.ashx
vs 2017
https://i2.wp.com/moorewithmiles.com/wp ... .png?w=541

I think gate 57/58 are supposed to be reconfigured into narrowbody gates once HA moves out. Maybe that could add 2 gates. Where gate 50 is right now might be configurable into 2. IIRC from reading other threads, AA is suppose to have preferential access to 10 gates once their T-4 work is done. There could be as many as 8 other gates in T-5 after LAX does all the work. That would be enough for B6 to run their target operation. Ideally, B6 is just trying to avoid getting moved to MSC or have a split operation. SFO looks really appealing if they get exiled to MSC.

nine4nine wrote:

Maybe because the route is extremely low yielding, 7 carriers already on it and WN is going all in on Hawaii. Is it really worth throwing 1 or 2 aircraft on a whole day routing, make little $$ when you can just have your loyal flyers codeshare on AA. Now it would be a different story if B6 served the islands from a secondary market outside of the LAX-HNL horde. Sorry but given B6 lackluster presence out west I don’t think it makes sense for them to join the Hawaii party from LA when they need to connect more dots out west and build more presence and a loyal pax base in CA. And if it’s about connections from the east coast, B6 pax have the opportunity to codeshare on HA from BOS,JFK,AUS, and MCO.

HNL-LAX is not that low yielding. I see the cheapest O/W Y fare right now at $189 on most days in July and J fare to be over $600 for HA (the only carrier consistently offering lie flat).

If you look at BOS-LAX, the cheapest O/W fare is about $149 in most days in July and J fare to be $599. The flight time between the two routes are about the same. They make decent money on those BOS-LAX fare levels. I think they'd be happy with where HNL-LAX is yielding. 7 carriers may sound intimidating, but only a couple of them offer lie flat product. That's where mint makes a killing in. It's also the type of stuff that can win loyal customers.

I can't imagine B6 being more profitable than that on LAX-SEA/SMF/PHX. All routes they probably have to eventually operate if they want to have a presence in the west coast.

I get the point you’re trying to make, however it’s known that premium cabin to Hawaii just isn’t where it’s at. Most west coast tourists going to Hawaii aren’t premium travelers, they are your budget travelers or award redemption pax. Every time in the past I’ve flown to Hawaii from LA be it on DL, AA, UA and especially mostly HA I’ve never had a problem upgrading to first day of travel on the app, at the ticket counter or gate. The space was almost always available. If a lie flat premium from the west coast was so sought after, I’m sure HA would have outfitted their 321 fleet with such to keep in common with the long haul 330 fleet, and they didn’t.

I noticed LAX-JAX has changed to a red eye now. Anyone know how it’s been doing so far? Not sure if those type of changes are good sign or bad.

nine4nine wrote:

tphuang wrote:

hbernal1 wrote:

Now that you mention LAX gates, how many gates are JetBlue using at LAX? Today they’re operating 35 flights and yesterday was 37 so they need to be using 4 gates at least. If they want to double in size to 75 flights they’ll probably need 4 more.

They had 19 departures out of SFO yesterday. They used B4/5/6/7/8 out of Harvey Milk terminal + 2 flights out of internal terminal. Nobody else used those gates. Plenty of gate availability there.

Out of LAX, they used 50,51B,55A,56,57,78,59 yesterday. I think 50, 55A and 59 are their gates. 56 gates are generally NK gates. 51A/51B/57/58 are CUTE gates. 57/58 are widebody gates mostly used by HA. They will be gone soon. 53A/B + 54A/B are the AA gates. 52 are the eagles nest gates
you can take a look at the current T-5 layout
https://www.flylax.com/-/media/flylax/t ... es/t5.ashx
vs 2017
https://i2.wp.com/moorewithmiles.com/wp ... .png?w=541

I think gate 57/58 are supposed to be reconfigured into narrowbody gates once HA moves out. Maybe that could add 2 gates. Where gate 50 is right now might be configurable into 2. IIRC from reading other threads, AA is suppose to have preferential access to 10 gates once their T-4 work is done. There could be as many as 8 other gates in T-5 after LAX does all the work. That would be enough for B6 to run their target operation. Ideally, B6 is just trying to avoid getting moved to MSC or have a split operation. SFO looks really appealing if they get exiled to MSC.

nine4nine wrote:

Maybe because the route is extremely low yielding, 7 carriers already on it and WN is going all in on Hawaii. Is it really worth throwing 1 or 2 aircraft on a whole day routing, make little $$ when you can just have your loyal flyers codeshare on AA. Now it would be a different story if B6 served the islands from a secondary market outside of the LAX-HNL horde. Sorry but given B6 lackluster presence out west I don’t think it makes sense for them to join the Hawaii party from LA when they need to connect more dots out west and build more presence and a loyal pax base in CA. And if it’s about connections from the east coast, B6 pax have the opportunity to codeshare on HA from BOS,JFK,AUS, and MCO.

HNL-LAX is not that low yielding. I see the cheapest O/W Y fare right now at $189 on most days in July and J fare to be over $600 for HA (the only carrier consistently offering lie flat).

If you look at BOS-LAX, the cheapest O/W fare is about $149 in most days in July and J fare to be $599. The flight time between the two routes are about the same. They make decent money on those BOS-LAX fare levels. I think they'd be happy with where HNL-LAX is yielding. 7 carriers may sound intimidating, but only a couple of them offer lie flat product. That's where mint makes a killing in. It's also the type of stuff that can win loyal customers.

I can't imagine B6 being more profitable than that on LAX-SEA/SMF/PHX. All routes they probably have to eventually operate if they want to have a presence in the west coast.

I get the point you’re trying to make, however it’s known that premium cabin to Hawaii just isn’t where it’s at. Most west coast tourists going to Hawaii aren’t premium travelers, they are your budget travelers or award redemption pax. Every time in the past I’ve flown to Hawaii from LA be it on DL, AA, UA and especially mostly HA I’ve never had a problem upgrading to first day of travel on the app, at the ticket counter or gate. The space was almost always available. If a lie flat premium from the west coast was so sought after, I’m sure HA would have outfitted their 321 fleet with such to keep in common with the long haul 330 fleet, and they didn’t.

HA does use A330s on all 3 of its LAX-HNL flights. That's why it needs those widebody gates in T-5. Mint is just a really cost effective product. If JetBlue can't sell out mint at $599, it will just lower it to $399. Or connect a bunch of people from JFK/BOS in mint. I'm sure if the legacies actually had lie flat on this route, upgrade will be a lot harder to get.

I don't see how LAX-HNL can be less premium than BOS-SEA/LAS or LAX-PBI.

B6 has to put its best product on routes that people want to go to win LAX local point of sale.

krsw757 wrote:

I noticed LAX-JAX has changed to a red eye now. Anyone know how it’s been doing so far? Not sure if those type of changes are good sign or bad.

That's more a function of driving up fleet utilization now that capacity is back to 2019 level.

I don't think any of the thin transcons they added out of LAX has done well. Let's see how they look in a year or two when demand/yield are back to pre-COVID level.

Wanted to post an anecdote. I was on B6 2735 (SFO-LAX) yesterday morning and then B6 636 (LAX-SFO) yesterday evening. I expected both flights to be moderately full based on the seat maps a couple days before the flights. However, what I found very interesting is that both flights were, in the words of the FAs who crewed each flight, "100% full." They were asking volunteers to gate check bags. Good on B6 for at the very least making a splash and getting their name out there with low fares. As someone who flew B6 for the first time yesterday, I wouldn't hesitate to fly them again (legroom, free wifi, IFE, snacks, etc) and I would love to see a further expansion at SFO. As my seatmates were saying on the inbound to SFO last night, "Why did we always fly NK when we could've had this?!"

Evidenced by this quote, they're doing a great job capturing the bottom half of the market since essentially, no LCCs other than WN serve the route out of the primary airports... and B6 is much more accessible to book on Google and has around the same number of frequencies as WN (don't quote me on the last claim). I just hope their success continues when they stop selling tickets at unsustainable prices.

tphuang wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

tphuang wrote:

They had 19 departures out of SFO yesterday. They used B4/5/6/7/8 out of Harvey Milk terminal + 2 flights out of internal terminal. Nobody else used those gates. Plenty of gate availability there.

Out of LAX, they used 50,51B,55A,56,57,78,59 yesterday. I think 50, 55A and 59 are their gates. 56 gates are generally NK gates. 51A/51B/57/58 are CUTE gates. 57/58 are widebody gates mostly used by HA. They will be gone soon. 53A/B + 54A/B are the AA gates. 52 are the eagles nest gates
you can take a look at the current T-5 layout
https://www.flylax.com/-/media/flylax/t ... es/t5.ashx
vs 2017
https://i2.wp.com/moorewithmiles.com/wp ... .png?w=541

I think gate 57/58 are supposed to be reconfigured into narrowbody gates once HA moves out. Maybe that could add 2 gates. Where gate 50 is right now might be configurable into 2. IIRC from reading other threads, AA is suppose to have preferential access to 10 gates once their T-4 work is done. There could be as many as 8 other gates in T-5 after LAX does all the work. That would be enough for B6 to run their target operation. Ideally, B6 is just trying to avoid getting moved to MSC or have a split operation. SFO looks really appealing if they get exiled to MSC.


HNL-LAX is not that low yielding. I see the cheapest O/W Y fare right now at $189 on most days in July and J fare to be over $600 for HA (the only carrier consistently offering lie flat).

If you look at BOS-LAX, the cheapest O/W fare is about $149 in most days in July and J fare to be $599. The flight time between the two routes are about the same. They make decent money on those BOS-LAX fare levels. I think they'd be happy with where HNL-LAX is yielding. 7 carriers may sound intimidating, but only a couple of them offer lie flat product. That's where mint makes a killing in. It's also the type of stuff that can win loyal customers.

I can't imagine B6 being more profitable than that on LAX-SEA/SMF/PHX. All routes they probably have to eventually operate if they want to have a presence in the west coast.

I get the point you’re trying to make, however it’s known that premium cabin to Hawaii just isn’t where it’s at. Most west coast tourists going to Hawaii aren’t premium travelers, they are your budget travelers or award redemption pax. Every time in the past I’ve flown to Hawaii from LA be it on DL, AA, UA and especially mostly HA I’ve never had a problem upgrading to first day of travel on the app, at the ticket counter or gate. The space was almost always available. If a lie flat premium from the west coast was so sought after, I’m sure HA would have outfitted their 321 fleet with such to keep in common with the long haul 330 fleet, and they didn’t.

HA does use A330s on all 3 of its LAX-HNL flights. That's why it needs those widebody gates in T-5. Mint is just a really cost effective product. If JetBlue can't sell out mint at $599, it will just lower it to $399. Or connect a bunch of people from JFK/BOS in mint. I'm sure if the legacies actually had lie flat on this route, upgrade will be a lot harder to get.

I don't see how LAX-HNL can be less premium than BOS-SEA/LAS or LAX-PBI.

B6 has to put its best product on routes that people want to go to win LAX local point of sale.

Wouldn’t this be a poor use of assets? The cost that the Mint product carries shouldn’t be wasted on lower yielding premium markets like Hawaii when it could earn more elsewhere on shorter haul flights. Ideally, an all economy aircraft would be more suitable. I understand that only one variant of the jetBlue A321 is currently up for ETOPS certification, but would the feds allow B6 to use other A321 variants/configurations in their ETOPS program without having to go through additional proving runs?

I agree with your assessment that B6 needs to be in these popular west coast markets (even if it’s at a loss) in order to build brand recognition and market relevance. It seems like LAX-SFO could also be a bright spot for B6 as the recovery continues. They’re the perfect replacement for former Virgin America fliers who prefer the primary airports in both cities, and they’re the perfect target audience for future loyalty as B6 grows in those markets. WN (and other carriers) have been somewhat slow to restore their intra-CA network due to the decline in business travel and CA state covid restrictions. And the dominant CA player (WN) has always faced fierce competition on LAX-SFO (they always flew fewer frequencies here compared to LAX/SoCal-SJC and OAK). I really think B6 could stand a chance at becoming a strong number 2 on LAX-SFO if they can find additional capacity for more frequencies.

nine4nine wrote:

What is the fascination with LAX-HNL??? There’s already 7 carriers on the route and the yields suck. B6 should really focus on niche markets that will actually make them money, not just jump onto a route because basically almost every other major US airline is on it with high frequencies, plus a lot of seats being reward redemptions too. Hence why I brought up PPT and RAR as alternative niche markets that carry high premium demand and have little competition. Hawaii especially HNL isn’t the only market in the Pacific.

Do we know that yields suck? Every time I compare the lowest fares on LAX-HNL,which seem to almost always be matched by all the competitors, it is $100 more than lowest fare on LAX-BOS (which is usually at least matched by B6).

sfojvjets wrote:

Wanted to post an anecdote. I was on B6 2735 (SFO-LAX) yesterday morning and then B6 636 (LAX-SFO) yesterday evening. I expected both flights to be moderately full based on the seat maps a couple days before the flights. However, what I found very interesting is that both flights were, in the words of the FAs who crewed each flight, "100% full." They were asking volunteers to gate check bags. Good on B6 for at the very least making a splash and getting their name out there with low fares. As someone who flew B6 for the first time yesterday, I wouldn't hesitate to fly them again (legroom, free wifi, IFE, snacks, etc) and I would love to see a further expansion at SFO. As my seatmates were saying on the inbound to SFO last night, "Why did we always fly NK when we could've had this?!"

Evidenced by this quote, they're doing a great job capturing the bottom half of the market since essentially, no LCCs other than WN serve the route out of the primary airports... and B6 is much more accessible to book on Google and has around the same number of frequencies as WN (don't quote me on the last claim). I just hope their success continues when they stop selling tickets at unsustainable prices.

Were any of the flights on a retrofitted A320?

hbernal1 wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

Wanted to post an anecdote. I was on B6 2735 (SFO-LAX) yesterday morning and then B6 636 (LAX-SFO) yesterday evening. I expected both flights to be moderately full based on the seat maps a couple days before the flights. However, what I found very interesting is that both flights were, in the words of the FAs who crewed each flight, "100% full." They were asking volunteers to gate check bags. Good on B6 for at the very least making a splash and getting their name out there with low fares. As someone who flew B6 for the first time yesterday, I wouldn't hesitate to fly them again (legroom, free wifi, IFE, snacks, etc) and I would love to see a further expansion at SFO. As my seatmates were saying on the inbound to SFO last night, "Why did we always fly NK when we could've had this?!"

Evidenced by this quote, they're doing a great job capturing the bottom half of the market since essentially, no LCCs other than WN serve the route out of the primary airports... and B6 is much more accessible to book on Google and has around the same number of frequencies as WN (don't quote me on the last claim). I just hope their success continues when they stop selling tickets at unsustainable prices.

Were any of the flights on a retrofitted A320?

Yes, both.

So interesting email...

B6 returning to its hub strategy come fall

Fat lady is singing for a lot of these routes if they don’t touch New York/ Newark Boston LA Orlando San Juan or Lauderdale/Miami

As I love to point out… They simply don’t have the aircraft for the large scale expansion they launched...If they want keep their hub structure. And unlike spirit and frontier...they seem to like a hub structure

jfklganyc wrote:

So interesting email...

B6 returning to its hub strategy come fall

Fat lady is singing for a lot of these routes if they don’t touch New York/ Newark Boston LA Orlando San Juan or Lauderdale/Miami

As I love to point out… They simply don’t have the aircraft for the large scale expansion they launched...If they want keep their hub structure. And unlike spirit and frontier...they seem to like a hub structure

RDU completely gutted besides hubs.

Same for PHL and AUS.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

So interesting email...

B6 returning to its hub strategy come fall

Fat lady is singing for a lot of these routes if they don’t touch New York/ Newark Boston LA Orlando San Juan or Lauderdale/Miami

As I love to point out… They simply don’t have the aircraft for the large scale expansion they launched...If they want keep their hub structure. And unlike spirit and frontier...they seem to like a hub structure

RDU completely gutted besides hubs.

Same for PHL and AUS.

Outside of PHL and AUS, MCO also took a pretty significant hit. No more ATL, BOG, PHL, SFO. MCO also loses AUS despite being a hub.

The RIC experiment also seems to be over.

Cutting PHL-TPA, RSW, & PBI does not surprise me. MCO is not a priority for B6 so I questioned PHL-MCO. I thought SJU would stick given that seemed to be the best out of all these markets

There is a couple of interesting decisions in there https://crankyflier.com/2021/06/14/jetb ... p-its-own/

Well, aside from EWR-SEA becoming seasonal, there is no other cuts out of NYC.

BOS-BUR/SJC are gone. I'm surprised by SJC. BWI/BDA/PDX gone for the winter. Surprised by PDX. I thought this is a route they'd finally try to run year round.

RDU-AUS/RSW/JAX/LAS/MBJ/MCO/SFO/TPA are cut. so it's down to BOS/CUN/FLL/LAX/EWR/JFK/SJU. I'm a little surprised that MCO/TPA are cut. Those seemed to do well enough to last. TPA might have too much capacity once AA added it. The other stuff really isn't too surprising. RSW consistently under performed. AUS/JAX made no sense once other carriers added. MBJ never seemed to have flown more than once a week. SFO would've been nice to keep around, but it had really low LF. Maybe it will come back sometimes down the round. I guess they need a lot of those E90s back out of NYC.

SFO lost RDU/AUS/MCO. i'm not surprised of the first 2, but MCO is surprising. I think MCO-SFO will make a comeback next summer once the NYC buildup is finished.

MCO is gutted. Gone are ATL/AUS/BOG that I had predicted before. So are the new routes PHL/SFO/RDU. Orlando will be small for a long time.

Gone is pretty much all of the PHL stuff. Basically, they've only kept SJU of the ones they added. This will make AA happy.

LAX-SEA - it will be interesting to see when they return here. It's obviously a tough market for them to stick around in.

Also gone are PIT-FLL/PBI, CLE-RSW, ORD-PBI, DCA-TPA, RIC-LAX/LAS. Of that list, I'm really just surprised by PIT-FLL. If they are going to keep around all of the other FLL adds, why are they cutting PIT of all places? Also, what's their plan of utilization DCA slots?

tphuang wrote:

There is a couple of interesting decisions in there https://crankyflier.com/2021/06/14/jetb ... p-its-own/

Well, aside from EWR-SEA becoming seasonal, there is no other cuts out of NYC.

By no other NYC cuts, I assume you are referring to no other EWR cuts, considering they barely fly anywhere from LGA, and they legally aren’t allowed to cut anything from JFK per the NEA.

tphuang wrote:

Also gone are PIT-FLL/PBI, CLE-RSW, ORD-PBI, DCA-TPA, RIC-LAX/LAS. Of that list, I'm really just surprised by PIT-FLL. If they are going to keep around all of the other FLL adds, why are they cutting PIT of all places?

Too many seats on PIT-South Florida and B6 is the odd man out once again. There were rumors that this was likely going to be a permanent cut dating back to April when it was made “seasonal”.

JetBlue just doesn’t have the right economical aircraft to make this route work.

Midwestindy wrote:

tphuang wrote:

There is a couple of interesting decisions in there https://crankyflier.com/2021/06/14/jetb ... p-its-own/

Well, aside from EWR-SEA becoming seasonal, there is no other cuts out of NYC.

By no other NYC cuts, I assume you are referring to no other EWR cuts, considering they barely fly anywhere from LGA, and they legally aren’t allowed to cut anything from JFK per the NEA.

They added a whole bunch of routes out of JFK since 2019 that they could've ended early (BOG/DFW/DTW/GEO/GUA/EYW/MSP/STT/SJD/HDN/BZN/BOI/FCA/MTJ). Maybe a couple of those seasonal ones will have limited run. We don't know yet.

The interesting part for me is to see what kind of network they will eventually have out of JFK. I'm assuming we will get another NEA announcement before the end of this month. At minimum with starting date on some of those announced markets, but probably with some new route announcements also.

Runway28L wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Also gone are PIT-FLL/PBI, CLE-RSW, ORD-PBI, DCA-TPA, RIC-LAX/LAS. Of that list, I'm really just surprised by PIT-FLL. If they are going to keep around all of the other FLL adds, why are they cutting PIT of all places?

Too many seats on PIT-South Florida and B6 is the odd man out once again. There were rumors that this was likely going to be a permanent cut dating back to April when it was made “seasonal”.

JetBlue just doesn’t have the right economical aircraft to make this route work.

They actually do, but FLL is not getting that aircraft right now.

BOS is getting the most economical aircraft in A220.

NYC is getting the second most economical aircraft in A321NEO.

NYC is getting the aircraft most appropriate for adding a lot of shorthaul frequency in E90.

NYC or LAX will likely be the next A220 base.

FLL unfortunately will not be getting A220s or more A321NEOs for a while I think. I'm just not sure why PSP and PHX are routes they should be keeping ahead of PIT.

tphuang wrote:

There is a couple of interesting decisions in there https://crankyflier.com/2021/06/14/jetb ... p-its-own/

Well, aside from EWR-SEA becoming seasonal, there is no other cuts out of NYC.

BOS-BUR/SJC are gone. I'm surprised by SJC. BWI/BDA/PDX gone for the winter. Surprised by PDX. I thought this is a route they'd finally try to run year round.

RDU-AUS/RSW/JAX/LAS/MBJ/MCO/SFO/TPA are cut. so it's down to BOS/CUN/FLL/LAX/EWR/JFK/SJU. I'm a little surprised that MCO/TPA are cut. Those seemed to do well enough to last. TPA might have too much capacity once AA added it. The other stuff really isn't too surprising. RSW consistently under performed. AUS/JAX made no sense once other carriers added. MBJ never seemed to have flown more than once a week. SFO would've been nice to keep around, but it had really low LF. Maybe it will come back sometimes down the round. I guess they need a lot of those E90s back out of NYC.

SFO lost RDU/AUS/MCO. i'm not surprised of the first 2, but MCO is surprising. I think MCO-SFO will make a comeback next summer once the NYC buildup is finished.

MCO is gutted. Gone are ATL/AUS/BOG that I had predicted before. So are the new routes PHL/SFO/RDU. Orlando will be small for a long time.

Gone is pretty much all of the PHL stuff. Basically, they've only kept SJU of the ones they added. This will make AA happy.

LAX-SEA - it will be interesting to see when they return here. It's obviously a tough market for them to stick around in.

Also gone are PIT-FLL/PBI, CLE-RSW, ORD-PBI, DCA-TPA, RIC-LAX/LAS. Of that list, I'm really just surprised by PIT-FLL. If they are going to keep around all of the other FLL adds, why are they cutting PIT of all places? Also, what's their plan of utilization DCA slots?

Quite a lot of cuts if you ask me. Not too surprised about ATL, however. B6 has been cutting its operations there for a while now, even to the point where they are only flying E190s to ATL, even from FLL. It could be that DL is way too dominant on those routes, or B6 is using their E190 fleet as a temporary substitution until the A320 refurbishment program is completed and more A220s become available. Either way, if the cutting continues, B6 may suffer the same fate in ATL that they met in 2003.

Iggy500 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

There is a couple of interesting decisions in there https://crankyflier.com/2021/06/14/jetb ... p-its-own/

Well, aside from EWR-SEA becoming seasonal, there is no other cuts out of NYC.

BOS-BUR/SJC are gone. I'm surprised by SJC. BWI/BDA/PDX gone for the winter. Surprised by PDX. I thought this is a route they'd finally try to run year round.

RDU-AUS/RSW/JAX/LAS/MBJ/MCO/SFO/TPA are cut. so it's down to BOS/CUN/FLL/LAX/EWR/JFK/SJU. I'm a little surprised that MCO/TPA are cut. Those seemed to do well enough to last. TPA might have too much capacity once AA added it. The other stuff really isn't too surprising. RSW consistently under performed. AUS/JAX made no sense once other carriers added. MBJ never seemed to have flown more than once a week. SFO would've been nice to keep around, but it had really low LF. Maybe it will come back sometimes down the round. I guess they need a lot of those E90s back out of NYC.

SFO lost RDU/AUS/MCO. i'm not surprised of the first 2, but MCO is surprising. I think MCO-SFO will make a comeback next summer once the NYC buildup is finished.

MCO is gutted. Gone are ATL/AUS/BOG that I had predicted before. So are the new routes PHL/SFO/RDU. Orlando will be small for a long time.

Gone is pretty much all of the PHL stuff. Basically, they've only kept SJU of the ones they added. This will make AA happy.

LAX-SEA - it will be interesting to see when they return here. It's obviously a tough market for them to stick around in.

Also gone are PIT-FLL/PBI, CLE-RSW, ORD-PBI, DCA-TPA, RIC-LAX/LAS. Of that list, I'm really just surprised by PIT-FLL. If they are going to keep around all of the other FLL adds, why are they cutting PIT of all places? Also, what's their plan of utilization DCA slots?

Quite a lot of cuts if you ask me. Not too surprised about ATL, however. B6 has been cutting its operations there for a while now, even to the point where they are only flying E190s to ATL, even from FLL. It could be that DL is way too dominant on those routes, or B6 is using their E190 fleet as a temporary substitution until the A320 refurbishment program is completed and more A220s become available. Either way, if the cutting continues, B6 may suffer the same fate in ATL that they met in 2003.

They just added EWR-ATL so it’s not all bad news. That route is performing very well.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

So interesting email...

B6 returning to its hub strategy come fall

Fat lady is singing for a lot of these routes if they don’t touch New York/ Newark Boston LA Orlando San Juan or Lauderdale/Miami

As I love to point out… They simply don’t have the aircraft for the large scale expansion they launched...If they want keep their hub structure. And unlike spirit and frontier...they seem to like a hub structure

RDU completely gutted besides hubs.

Same for PHL and AUS.

Say it ain't so.....RDU was a pipe dream.

tphuang wrote:

There is a couple of interesting decisions in there https://crankyflier.com/2021/06/14/jetb ... p-its-own/

Well, aside from EWR-SEA becoming seasonal, there is no other cuts out of NYC.

BOS-BUR/SJC are gone. I'm surprised by SJC. BWI/BDA/PDX gone for the winter. Surprised by PDX. I thought this is a route they'd finally try to run year round.

RDU-AUS/RSW/JAX/LAS/MBJ/MCO/SFO/TPA are cut. so it's down to BOS/CUN/FLL/LAX/EWR/JFK/SJU. I'm a little surprised that MCO/TPA are cut. Those seemed to do well enough to last. TPA might have too much capacity once AA added it. The other stuff really isn't too surprising. RSW consistently under performed. AUS/JAX made no sense once other carriers added. MBJ never seemed to have flown more than once a week. SFO would've been nice to keep around, but it had really low LF. Maybe it will come back sometimes down the round. I guess they need a lot of those E90s back out of NYC.

SFO lost RDU/AUS/MCO. i'm not surprised of the first 2, but MCO is surprising. I think MCO-SFO will make a comeback next summer once the NYC buildup is finished.

MCO is gutted. Gone are ATL/AUS/BOG that I had predicted before. So are the new routes PHL/SFO/RDU. Orlando will be small for a long time.

Gone is pretty much all of the PHL stuff. Basically, they've only kept SJU of the ones they added. This will make AA happy.

LAX-SEA - it will be interesting to see when they return here. It's obviously a tough market for them to stick around in.

Also gone are PIT-FLL/PBI, CLE-RSW, ORD-PBI, DCA-TPA, RIC-LAX/LAS. Of that list, I'm really just surprised by PIT-FLL. If they are going to keep around all of the other FLL adds, why are they cutting PIT of all places? Also, what's their plan of utilization DCA slots?

Looks like all the BDL adds stuck around (LAX, LAS, SFO, CUN). Seems like they may be strong to do well looking at current fares on those routes.

tphuang wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

tphuang wrote:

There is a couple of interesting decisions in there https://crankyflier.com/2021/06/14/jetb ... p-its-own/

Well, aside from EWR-SEA becoming seasonal, there is no other cuts out of NYC.

By no other NYC cuts, I assume you are referring to no other EWR cuts, considering they barely fly anywhere from LGA, and they legally aren’t allowed to cut anything from JFK per the NEA.

They added a whole bunch of routes out of JFK since 2019 that they could've ended early (BOG/DFW/DTW/GEO/GUA/EYW/MSP/STT/SJD/HDN/BZN/BOI/FCA/MTJ). Maybe a couple of those seasonal ones will have limited run. We don't know yet.

The interesting part for me is to see what kind of network they will eventually have out of JFK. I'm assuming we will get another NEA announcement before the end of this month. At minimum with starting date on some of those announced markets, but probably with some new route announcements also.

Except they can’t really cut any of these routes either, since they need to hit the growth level requirements that are coming up that where set out by the NEA.

I’m not sure why many seem surprised by any of this they were very clear when the pandemic hit that they need to readjust the network to meet we’re demand was at the time to stay above water and a float in a time of crisis. And they said many times that as demand and recovery returned they will restore and return back to the original M.0. And planes are not coming in at a speed where they could restore demand to previous levels and maintain the Covid experiment of networking. There will be some restoring over time. As expected.

As far as Orlando it makes sense for them not to focus on it right now. They have a rare opportunity to build up and network in the Northeast where they were limited and now they have available resources with the NEA. Orlando is never a premium high-yielding market, and there will always be demand there whenever they decide to build it up again. Which they have said many times they will refocus on Orlando at a later point. ULCC expansion you see the tells you allot about Orlando yields. It also tells you based on previous data that customers flying on a ULCC are not the customers that usually have a loyalty program or loyalty to a brand. So when JetBlue eventually decides to expand there in the future it’s not like they have to fight for loyalty consumers. Which is usually a challenge when you’re building up a market with a dominance by the legacy guys. That’s why Orlando can wait. Unlike the Northeast you have to lock down that market to garner FF programs and marketshare. That’s not as much of a case in Orlando

maximairways wrote:

Looks like all the BDL adds stuck around (LAX, LAS, SFO, CUN). Seems like they may be strong to do well looking at current fares on those routes.

we'd have to wait a while to see how those numbers look. I think this is also related to where B6 is emphasizing. JetBlue has shown here that it wants to strengthen in the area between NYC/Boston. Notice how there is no PVD cuts also.

Midwestindy wrote:

Except they can’t really cut any of these routes either, since they need to hit the growth level requirements that are coming up that where set out by the NEA.

Not disagreeing with that premise, but it doesn't preclude them from cuts. It's certainly possible that one or two routes they added are terrible performers and they find other routes that make more sense. They have to decide what's the best way to build a network in JFK that not only supports their own operation but also connects to AA's long haul stuff. Since AA's PHL TATL operation is reduced, I'm sure AA will have a lot of input on where JetBlue should be flying out of JFK, so that they don't loose out on TATL demand from certain east coast markets.

Iggy500 wrote:

Quite a lot of cuts if you ask me. Not too surprised about ATL, however. B6 has been cutting its operations there for a while now, even to the point where they are only flying E190s to ATL, even from FLL. It could be that DL is way too dominant on those routes, or B6 is using their E190 fleet as a temporary substitution until the A320 refurbishment program is completed and more A220s become available. Either way, if the cutting continues, B6 may suffer the same fate in ATL that they met in 2003.

I'm not sure why cutting MCO-ATL is so important. They haven't operated that since the start of pandemic. Here is something to consider for you. ATL had a load factor of 72% for March. That is an above 50th percentile LF in their system. NYC-ATL and FLL-ATL have all done pretty well. They are not leaving ATL.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Say it ain't so.....RDU was a pipe dream.

not really

I think we've established that JetBlue had enough resource to do a mini-buildup of at most 1 other city over the next 4 years outside NYC/BOS/FLL/LAX. It seems like SFO is a better choice based on what we discussed in this thread over the past few days. I'm not saying SFO will happen, but it is the most appealing of the available choices.

Now, if DL had back off from RDU and AA didn't add several new RDU routes, then I think RDU would be more attractive. Even with the cuts, RDU will still be one of their larger outstations.

tphuang wrote:

BWI/BDA/PDX gone for the winter. Surprised by PDX. I thought this is a route they'd finally try to run year round.

BOS-PDX is still in the placeholder schedule from Feb. 10, 2022 onward. I'm surprised that they would cut the route during the peak-travel holiday season, though.

Perhaps they're just waiting for the right time to begin flying the A220 on longer routes.

MCO BOG holy cow!

Havent they flown that for a decade plus?

What I dont understand about MCO: the growth is there, the crew bases are there,the new terminal is there, the HQ may move there, the post pandemic momentum is there...what the hell are you doing if you are Bluejet??

This should be a 100 flight a day operation yesterday and growing tomorrow. How long is the catch and release game going to go on in MCO? It is bizzare

usairways85 wrote:

Cutting PHL-TPA, RSW, & PBI does not surprise me. MCO is not a priority for B6 so I questioned PHL-MCO. I thought SJU would stick given that seemed to be the best out of all these markets

I was at least expecting the PBI and RSW routes to end but overall not surprised especially with the fact that the routes that are getting cut are currently flying on E190 instead of their a320s.

tphuang wrote:

There is a couple of interesting decisions in there https://crankyflier.com/2021/06/14/jetb ... p-its-own/

Well, aside from EWR-SEA becoming seasonal, there is no other cuts out of NYC.

BOS-BUR/SJC are gone. I'm surprised by SJC. BWI/BDA/PDX gone for the winter. Surprised by PDX. I thought this is a route they'd finally try to run year round.

RDU-AUS/RSW/JAX/LAS/MBJ/MCO/SFO/TPA are cut. so it's down to BOS/CUN/FLL/LAX/EWR/JFK/SJU. I'm a little surprised that MCO/TPA are cut. Those seemed to do well enough to last. TPA might have too much capacity once AA added it. The other stuff really isn't too surprising. RSW consistently under performed. AUS/JAX made no sense once other carriers added. MBJ never seemed to have flown more than once a week. SFO would've been nice to keep around, but it had really low LF. Maybe it will come back sometimes down the round. I guess they need a lot of those E90s back out of NYC.

SFO lost RDU/AUS/MCO. i'm not surprised of the first 2, but MCO is surprising. I think MCO-SFO will make a comeback next summer once the NYC buildup is finished.

MCO is gutted. Gone are ATL/AUS/BOG that I had predicted before. So are the new routes PHL/SFO/RDU. Orlando will be small for a long time.

Gone is pretty much all of the PHL stuff. Basically, they've only kept SJU of the ones they added. This will make AA happy.

LAX-SEA - it will be interesting to see when they return here. It's obviously a tough market for them to stick around in.

Also gone are PIT-FLL/PBI, CLE-RSW, ORD-PBI, DCA-TPA, RIC-LAX/LAS. Of that list, I'm really just surprised by PIT-FLL. If they are going to keep around all of the other FLL adds, why are they cutting PIT of all places? Also, what's their plan of utilization DCA slots?

MCO will probably stay in the 40-50 flight range until NEA and LAX expansions are done. MCO-PHL/SFO/RDU is all I see coming back plus a new station or two that B6 adds. Not surprised about PHL-Florida getting cut; doesn't make a whole lot of sense to aggressively expand there. PHL-LAX is really all I see making sense to add in the future.

RDU getting some of their routes cut makes sense for now. DL re-added some routes and AA has been expanding. B6 would've also run into gate space issues that were a problem pre-COVID. I agree that RDU-MCO/TPA getting cut is a surprise.

As for LAX-SEA, I'm of the opinion that it will return summer 2022 or later (likely around 2023 when the expansion is supposed to start happening). SEA demand overall is still significantly down and B6 don't really have much of a strategic interest there. It's more important to fly more flights on LAX-SFO. LAX-RIC definitely will settle to be a sub-daily route if it comes back.

jfklganyc wrote:

MCO BOG holy cow!

Havent they flown that for a decade plus?

What I dont understand about MCO: the growth is there, the crew bases are there,the new terminal is there, the HQ may move there, the post pandemic momentum is there...what the hell are you doing if you are Bluejet??

This should be a 100 flight a day operation yesterday and growing tomorrow. How long is the catch and release game going to go on in MCO? It is bizzare

They've added JFK-BOG now which i think is much more important. I also think MCO-BOG will be one of the first they restore over time..

Abeam79 wrote:

As far as Orlando it makes sense for them not to focus on it right now. They have a rare opportunity to build up and network in the Northeast where they were limited and now they have available resources with the NEA. Orlando is never a premium high-yielding market, and there will always be demand there whenever they decide to build it up again. Which they have said many times they will refocus on Orlando at a later point. ULCC expansion you see the tells you allot about Orlando yields. It also tells you based on previous data that customers flying on a ULCC are not the customers that usually have a loyalty program or loyalty to a brand. So when JetBlue eventually decides to expand their in the future it’s not like they have to fight for loyalty consumers. Which is usually a challenge when you’re building up a market with a dominance by the legacy guys. That’s why Orlando can wait. Unlike the Northeast you have to lock down that market to garner FF programs and marketshare. That’s not as much of a case in Orlando

WN has a much bigger presence at MCO than B6, and WN has nonstop service to MCO from some markets not served by B6 (including BHM, CVG, CMH, GRR, IND, MCI, SDF, MEM, MKE, ORF, OKC, OMA, STL, and SAT). WN also offers connections to MCO from some markets that currently don't have have any nonstop service to the MCO/SFB market on any airline.

In addition to the significantly larger WN presence in MCO and the WN network being much bigger than B6, WN also has a significant FF base in Greater Orlando and MCO-originating VFR traffic to support WN nonstop service out of MCO to destinations that might not be able to support nonstop service out of MCO on B6.

Abeam79 wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

MCO BOG holy cow!

Havent they flown that for a decade plus?

What I dont understand about MCO: the growth is there, the crew bases are there,the new terminal is there, the HQ may move there, the post pandemic momentum is there...what the hell are you doing if you are Bluejet??

This should be a 100 flight a day operation yesterday and growing tomorrow. How long is the catch and release game going to go on in MCO? It is bizzare

They've added JFK-BOG now which i think is much more important. I also think MCO-BOG will be one of the first they restore over time..

Pre pandemic B6 cut MCO-BOG down to a seasonal flight that seems to operate randomly for a few months here and there and then would disappear before coming back.

Even before COVID, I noticed that MCO rarely got new routes as compared to their other hubs. In Florida, it always seemed that FLL was B6's main priority. And the MCO "hub" was more of an after-thought.

Does anyone know why that is the case? Is there more competition out of Orlando? Higher operation costs? Lower demand? Just wondering.

Runway28L wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Also gone are PIT-FLL/PBI, CLE-RSW, ORD-PBI, DCA-TPA, RIC-LAX/LAS. Of that list, I'm really just surprised by PIT-FLL. If they are going to keep around all of the other FLL adds, why are they cutting PIT of all places?

Too many seats on PIT-South Florida and B6 is the odd man out once again. There were rumors that this was likely going to be a permanent cut dating back to April when it was made “seasonal”.

JetBlue just doesn’t have the right economical aircraft to make this route work.

How are there too many seats on PIT-S FL?!? WN, NK, and F9 have all announced or begun large scale expansion at MIA and PIT didn’t get a piece of any of that other than a few flights around the holidays. PITs economy is in the tank, unemployment a good bit higher than peer cities.

B6s fleet is very economical actually, the A220 being perfect for these routes. That is not the problem.

jplatts wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

As far as Orlando it makes sense for them not to focus on it right now. They have a rare opportunity to build up and network in the Northeast where they were limited and now they have available resources with the NEA. Orlando is never a premium high-yielding market, and there will always be demand there whenever they decide to build it up again. Which they have said many times they will refocus on Orlando at a later point. ULCC expansion you see the tells you allot about Orlando yields. It also tells you based on previous data that customers flying on a ULCC are not the customers that usually have a loyalty program or loyalty to a brand. So when JetBlue eventually decides to expand their in the future it’s not like they have to fight for loyalty consumers. Which is usually a challenge when you’re building up a market with a dominance by the legacy guys. That’s why Orlando can wait. Unlike the Northeast you have to lock down that market to garner FF programs and marketshare. That’s not as much of a case in Orlando

WN has a much bigger presence at MCO than B6, and WN has nonstop service to MCO from some markets not served by B6 (including BHM, CVG, CMH, GRR, IND, MCI, SDF, MEM, MKE, ORF, OKC, OMA, STL, and SAT). WN also offers connections to MCO from some markets that currently don't have have any nonstop service to the MCO/SFB market on any airline.

In addition to the significantly larger WN presence in MCO and the WN network being much bigger than B6, WN also has a significant FF base in Greater Orlando and MCO-originating VFR traffic to support WN nonstop service out of MCO to destinations that might not be able to support nonstop service out of MCO on B6.

Ok good for them WN has a decent operation, bigger than B6 in MCO. Not sure what your point is? you have yield data? MCO for WN is not on the bottom of their network but surely not at the top either in terms of performance. And to extend to your point, are you suggesting that when B6 builds MCO it will be a moot point because WN has a network thats bigger there? Even more reason to build and bring competition in which B6 competes very well, much better than with NK/F9 as a matter of fact in other markets. WN actually pulled back out of FLL a bunch and EWR competely, both markets B6 is a competitor. Likewise B6 has also pulled back on WN strongholds like BWI, but that was more after NK added a bunch there as well, and BWI wasn't as important to bulk up on the priority list. B6 did pulled out of LGB, but that was never a big revenue generator even way before WN entered and latest data shows LGB is and never was a great revenue environment, WN included. Point is, some win some lose, but B6 competes very well all around, and have a decent FF loyalty presence already in MCO. It won't be that hard to build and make MCO suscessful in a few years as say a place like AUS or BWI.

acavpics wrote:

Even before COVID, I noticed that MCO rarely got new routes as compared to their other hubs. In Florida, it always seemed that FLL was B6's main priority. And the MCO "hub" was more of an after-thought.

Does anyone know why that is the case? Is there more competition out of Orlando? Higher operation costs? Lower demand? Just wondering.

domestic market share by revenue around start of 2020
B6 - close to 30%
WN - around 10 to 15%
DL - 20 to 25%
AA - about 15%
NK - 5%

Now, I'm sure if you actually factor in international flights, both B6/NK will be higher than that. Basically, FLL has a lot of O&D to Latin America where B6 does quite well in. So, B6 had a pretty good point of sale at FLL. They actually were even higher in 2017/2018 when they added a bunch of routes. They didn't grow in 2019 and the operation stabilized in PnL, but their market share went down a little bit. Either way, B6 is the strongest carrier in FLL. It took a while for them to build up to this position. They have the most gates at FLL. I expect them to be the largest carrier here long term due to the gate advantage.

If you look at MCO at start of 2020
B6 - under 10% by early 2020, they were as high as a little over 15% in 2014 to 2015.
WN - close to 20%
DL - 25 to 30%
AA - 25 to 30%
UA - 10%

Maybe B6 will be a little higher with international flights, but it's still a much more fragmented market, where both DL (from its focus city days) and AA are quite strong. Even as the largest carrier in MCO, WN cannot win over as much of the local market share as DL/AA. It seems to me that building up MCO is a lot harder when you don't have a nation wide network, since most MCO routes depend on other side point of sale.

Of the cut routes, there are a few that would make sense to bring back at some point:
SFO-AUS/MCO/RDU (if SFO becomes a focus city)
RDU-TPA/MCO (AUS has way too many carriers on it, so adding it back won't make any sense until either of AA/WN gives in)

That said, there's still a few takeaways following these cuts:
1. JetBlue plan on having bigger RDU and SFO operations than pre-COVID, even with today's cuts.
2. The AUS drawdown is really B6 signaling they want no part in the AA/WN battle that's formed there lately.
3. LAX has higher priority than MCO in the focus city buildup. LAX-SEA/RIC will return in April 2022 for the time being. The bad MCO routes are cut altogether.
4. Most of the CUN/SJU adds did really well and survived (even CUN-LAS/BNA/SMF are still on the schedule).
5. None of the BDL routes getting cut means that capturing traffic in CT between JFK/BOS is important for JetBlue. I agree with this assessment.

flyPIT wrote:

Runway28L wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Also gone are PIT-FLL/PBI, CLE-RSW, ORD-PBI, DCA-TPA, RIC-LAX/LAS. Of that list, I'm really just surprised by PIT-FLL. If they are going to keep around all of the other FLL adds, why are they cutting PIT of all places?

Too many seats on PIT-South Florida and B6 is the odd man out once again. There were rumors that this was likely going to be a permanent cut dating back to April when it was made “seasonal”.

JetBlue just doesn’t have the right economical aircraft to make this route work.

How are there too many seats on PIT-S FL?!? WN, NK, and F9 have all announced or begun large scale expansion at MIA and PIT didn’t get a piece of any of that other than a few flights around the holidays. PITs economy is in the tank, unemployment a good bit higher than peer cities.

B6s fleet is very economical actually, the A220 being perfect for these routes. That is not the problem.

I agree cutting FLL-PIT is a strange decision. I would like to see LAX-PIT get added though; it could be a perfect A220 route.