USAirALB wrote:

For all intensive purposes

"intents and purposes"......

USAirALB wrote:

WN has failed to do in the Northeast what they have successfully done in other regions of the country, but that isn't the fault of WN, but rather poor geography of the region.

Please tell me you meant that as a joke, and weren't actually being serious with such an absurd statement

Lootess wrote:

In a way, Southwest at EWR launched without much of a splash, why fly them when you have a dominant UA hub right there. If anything it was just WN loyalists from their markets flying to NYC.
.

Well, DEN seems to indicate that the two airlines can effectively operate in the same market. DEN also likely explains why SLC isn’t much bigger—the two airports compete for some of the same traffic flows.

LAX772LR wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

For all intensive purposes

"intents and purposes"......

USAirALB wrote:

WN has failed to do in the Northeast what they have successfully done in other regions of the country, but that isn't the fault of WN, but rather poor geography of the region.

Please tell me you meant that as a joke, and weren't actually being serious with such an absurd statement

That’s what happens when you type on your phone and are running on no sleep for 48 hours…but I appreciate you being so kind to point out the grammatical error!

I simply said that WN probably entered the Northeast and expected to emulate what they had done elsewhere in the country in regard to P2P sectors on short haul. I'm incredibly confused why you are choosing to state that my post is a "joke" when rather another user literally said the same thing:

B6BOSfan wrote:

The playbook that works across the rest of the country, doesn't quite work in such a tightly packed geographic region, that has its own quirks and needs.

USAirALB wrote:

I simply said that WN probably entered the Northeast and expected to emulate what they had done elsewhere in the country in regard to P2P sectors on short haul. I'm incredibly confused why you are choosing to state that my post is a "joke" when rather another user literally said the same thing:

B6BOSfan wrote:

The playbook that works across the rest of the country, doesn't quite work in such a tightly packed geographic region, that has its own quirks and needs.

Because, as stated, the conclusion that "market doesn't fit into the narrow confines of a specific business model, therefore the market/geography is the problem" is laughable on its face.

True that WN can't be all things to all markets, but many of its limitations (particularly on the IT front until relatively recently) were completely self-inflicted.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

JFK is missing a common new theme for large airports: NK, F9, or WN service.

NK and F9 both fly out of the other two NYC airports. Those serve Manhattan and Queens/Brooklyn parts. However, people living closer to JFK or east do not have ULCC service. Please correct me if it is a price issue, but I am confused on why NK or F9 will not try to get into JFK. FLL, MIA, MCO, and SJU are some of the most popular routes out of JFK. All of which are covered by 2 airlines (usually B6 and DL).

A sample of JFK-MCO on either DL or B6 costs over 300 bucks ONE WAY. Why can't NK or F9 plop down a 100-200 RT to MCO. Again, please correct me if it is a price or slot issue.

An airport missing ULCCs would make sense if it was applied to the "Southwest effect." However, WN is not in JFK territory. Them leaving EWR may be an indicator for the NYC market, but LGA does fine yet has not expanded. Does NYC not prefer WN?

JFK could be "The JetBlue Effect"... in 2012. As a B6 flier, I have noticed an uptick in their prices over the last few years. Now, it is cheaper to fly AA and DL compared. B6 is no longer the "low-cost" airline it started out as. I love B6 and their work at JFK, but they are expanding rapidly at EWR and their prices.

The ironic thing about this post is that the largest carrier at JFK is a low-cost carrier and WN who you wish for is no longer considered an LCC by almost everybody.

TerminalD wrote:

AmericanAir88 wrote:

JFK is missing a common new theme for large airports: NK, F9, or WN service.

NK and F9 both fly out of the other two NYC airports. Those serve Manhattan and Queens/Brooklyn parts. However, people living closer to JFK or east do not have ULCC service. Please correct me if it is a price issue, but I am confused on why NK or F9 will not try to get into JFK. FLL, MIA, MCO, and SJU are some of the most popular routes out of JFK. All of which are covered by 2 airlines (usually B6 and DL).

A sample of JFK-MCO on either DL or B6 costs over 300 bucks ONE WAY. Why can't NK or F9 plop down a 100-200 RT to MCO. Again, please correct me if it is a price or slot issue.

An airport missing ULCCs would make sense if it was applied to the "Southwest effect." However, WN is not in JFK territory. Them leaving EWR may be an indicator for the NYC market, but LGA does fine yet has not expanded. Does NYC not prefer WN?

JFK could be "The JetBlue Effect"... in 2012. As a B6 flier, I have noticed an uptick in their prices over the last few years. Now, it is cheaper to fly AA and DL compared. B6 is no longer the "low-cost" airline it started out as. I love B6 and their work at JFK, but they are expanding rapidly at EWR and their prices.

The ironic thing about this post is that the largest carrier at JFK is a low-cost carrier and WN who you wish for is no longer considered an LCC by almost everybody.

JetBlue isn’t currently the largest airline in JFK, but might become it after the NEA.

In general, NYC after the NEA is complete will likely see Delta, JetBlue, and United fairly close in flight count in the metro. United and Delta might be slightly larger, but jetblue is looking to operate 350-400 flights a day out of NYC not including AAL flights. That’s a lot of LCC coverage in one metro.

The major reason for the lack of ULCC coverage in jfk? Expensive unavailable slots and it’s an expensive airport to operate out of.

JFK has so much competition that the fares are already very low. IMO that's why you don't see LCC at JFK.
You'd be hard pressed to find lower fares from any other NYC airport.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

JFK is missing a common new theme for large airports: NK, F9, or WN service.

NK and F9 both fly out of the other two NYC airports. Those serve Manhattan and Queens/Brooklyn parts. However, people living closer to JFK or east do not have ULCC service. Please correct me if it is a price issue, but I am confused on why NK or F9 will not try to get into JFK. FLL, MIA, MCO, and SJU are some of the most popular routes out of JFK. All of which are covered by 2 airlines (usually B6 and DL).

A sample of JFK-MCO on either DL or B6 costs over 300 bucks ONE WAY. Why can't NK or F9 plop down a 100-200 RT to MCO. Again, please correct me if it is a price or slot issue.

An airport missing ULCCs would make sense if it was applied to the "Southwest effect." However, WN is not in JFK territory. Them leaving EWR may be an indicator for the NYC market, but LGA does fine yet has not expanded. Does NYC not prefer WN?

JFK could be "The JetBlue Effect"... in 2012. As a B6 flier, I have noticed an uptick in their prices over the last few years. Now, it is cheaper to fly AA and DL compared. B6 is no longer the "low-cost" airline it started out as. I love B6 and their work at JFK, but they are expanding rapidly at EWR and their prices.

I don't think it's a LCC thing, I think JFK overall has a problem with domestic traffic (always has) that is within the perimeter ops of LaGuardia. Compare the flight options now, and historically, between Kennedy and Chicago, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro, Columbus, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver etc.. vs. Newark and LaGuardia.

IAD suffers similarly to Kennedy as they both have preferred closer in airports (DCA, LGA). IAD has been hurt by Congress tinkering with the DCA perimeter rule. IAD has no LCCs, save a couple WN flights, where DCA has robust WN and B6 service and BWI is a hub for both WN and NK (as well as Sun Country and Frontier service).

Lootess wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

B6BOSfan wrote:

The struggles really aren't limited to New York City either. WN entered Boston years ago, but has really struggled to gain traction, and has trimmed back its schedule more and more through the years, to just hub flights now. Another market B6 has really taken advantage of.

WN entered PHL with a splash in the mid-2000s but that also didn't work out so well.

US Airways CEO David Siegel at the time: "They're coming to kill US".

Despite the labor issues and another rung through Chapter 11, they made it out pretty well.

Hardly. US was weeks away from Chapter 7 liquidation in 2004. What saved it was the HP merger.

Lootess wrote:

NYC people didn't go out of their way to ISP to fly Southwest, well before able to add EWR and LGA. There is also the jetBlue factor, already an LCC large presence at JFK. There was also the aspect of would the Southwest check-in/boarding model work in this market?

In a way, Southwest at EWR launched without much of a splash, why fly them when you have a dominant UA hub right there. If anything it was just WN loyalists from their markets flying to NYC.

You can look at another case study, SLC, where Southwest is rather ho-hum there in a dominant Delta hub.

ISP isn't exactly close to NYC. It is over an hour from Penn Station on the LIRR and not a taxi ride away. ISP's catchment does not really extend beyond LI and maybe coastal Connecticut that is very close to the Port Washington ferry.

N757ST wrote:

JetBlue isn’t currently the largest airline in JFK, but might become it after the NEA.

Only by the definition you have chosen to use. For example, they are presently the #1 domestic carrier at JFK for originating traffic according to MIDT.

nycflyer99 wrote:

For what’s it’s worth, I will say that within the past 6 months I have flown BNA-LGA and MDW-LGA on WN and both flights were 100% full, so there definitely is some fanfare for WN here from what I see. Was even talking to one person on the MDW flight who drove all the way from Suffolk, which is ISP territory, for the flight out of LGA. Could definitely see them making something work out of JFK bridging that gap between ISP and LGA, making it easier for those in western Nassau to choose them over B6.

But why would WN enter JFK just to duke it out with B6 on a handful of non-core routes? WN doesn't need to be at JFK and that's why it isn't. There also isn't a gate/terminal arrangement for WN to be operationally efficient. Same goes for NK and F9.

TerminalD wrote:

N757ST wrote:

JetBlue isn’t currently the largest airline in JFK, but might become it after the NEA.

Only by the definition you have chosen to use. For example, they are presently the #1 domestic carrier at JFK for originating traffic according to MIDT.

Since when do we count only domestic passengers at JFK INTERNATIONAL Airport? I don’t think I’m the one picking an obscure definition here.

Essentially what it comes down to is there is not really any demand for short domestic travel to and from JFK that isn’t connecting. Additionally, you have EWR and LGA serving as competition. And finally, no one in NYC likes or knows about WN’s business model.

nycflyer99 wrote:

Was even talking to one person on the MDW flight who drove all the way from Suffolk, which is ISP territory, for the flight out of LGA.

I lived in Nassau County and worked for Newsday for many years. For a while, I was flying out to see clients in the Chicago area every month or two. We would grab an early WN flight (around a 7am departure) from ISP to MDW, spend the day, then return home that evening.

WN killed ISP-MDW non-stops, now you have to go through BWI - with a 6am departure - and spend 4+ hours flying time each way. LGA to MDW at least has a non-stop, albeit also leaving at 6am, but only 2 hours in the air. But you do pay for that convenience - looking at a sample booking for this coming Monday, the ISP-MDW non-stop is more than twice the price of the ISP-BWI-MDW round trip ($1,100 vs. $490 for an Anytime fare). Without a non-stop to MDW, I'm sure some people do prefer to drive to LGA, especially if the company is covering the cost.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Essentially what it comes down to is there is not really any demand for short domestic travel to and from JFK that isn’t connecting. Additionally, you have EWR and LGA serving as competition. And finally, no one in NYC likes or knows about WN’s business model.

The real reason what WN hasn't been as successful in BOS, PHL, SFO, and avoided JFK, is lack or efficient turns. Planes only make money when they are flying. The congestion in these airports add significant extra cost to the operation because you've created a bottleneck in the network.

There is absolutely plenty of domestic demand if the fare is right. Nobody cares about WNs business model, they just want cheap fares. Just look at NK at LGA and EWR. But they are not running a WN type operation where cost control is the corporate mantra.

STT757 wrote:

I don't think it's a LCC thing, I think JFK overall has a problem with domestic traffic (always has) that is within the perimeter ops of LaGuardia. Compare the flight options now, and historically, between Kennedy and Chicago, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro, Columbus, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver etc.. vs. Newark and LaGuardia.

IAD suffers similarly to Kennedy as they both have preferred closer in airports (DCA, LGA). IAD has been hurt by Congress tinkering with the DCA perimeter rule. IAD has no LCCs, save a couple WN flights, where DCA has robust WN and B6 service and BWI is a hub for both WN and NK (as well as Sun Country and Frontier service).

There are some within-LGA perimeter markets on the East Coast that have stronger O&D demand (higher PDEW's) from JFK than from LGA such as BTV, CHS, RSW, JAX, MVY, ACK, MCO, PWM, SRQ, SAV, SYR, and TPA, but these markets are served nonstop from JFK on B6.

While DAL is closer to Downtown Dallas than DFW, there are only a handful of markets that have stronger O&D demand (higher PDEW's) from DAL than from DFW such as AUS, BWI, HOU, ELP, MCI, LBB, MAF, MSY, ECP, and STL. Most of the other markets that are served nonstop from both DFW and DAL have much stronger demand from DFW than from DAL, despite DFW being further from Downtown Dallas than DAL.

The situation is different at DAL than at LGA as DAL is restricted to 20 gates under the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006, whereas LGA has more gates than DAL but has slot and perimeter restrictions.

DFW is also closer to Fort Worth than DAL is.

WN was bigger by number of passengers at DAL in 2019 than AA or DL were at LGA in 2019, even with AA and DL having nonstop service out of LGA to some destinations that WN doesn't serve nonstop from DAL.

WN was also bigger by number of passengers at DAL in 2019 than AA was at DCA in 2019, despite AA having nonstop service out of DCA to some destinations that WN doesn't serve nonstop from DAL.

There are very few markets with stronger O&D demand (higher PDEW's) from MDW than from ORD, despite MDW being closer to the Chicago Loop than ORD. MCI is one of the few markets that has stronger O&D demand to MDW than to ORD.

There are some within-DCA perimeter markets with nonstop service to both DCA and BWI such as ATL, CLT, DTW, MSY, JAX, SDF, and PWM that have stronger O&D demand (higher PDEWs) to BWI than to DCA, despite DCA being much closer to Downtown DC and the National Mall. The situation is different at BWI due to BWI being much closer to the city of Baltimore, the northern Baltimore suburbs, and the eastern Baltimore suburbs than DCA.

Nothing about NYC = low cost. In fact, the opposite is true, it's ridiculously expensive. Thus WN has struggled. B6 has survived, but does not thrive, even in good times, like the US3 and WN. And B6 continues with substandard wages and benefits compared to those named above.

The NEUSA is also operationally complex. As some have pointed out, that hurts WN's vaunted efficiency. As pointed out, WN is not low cost, but i would assert that they are low price, thus they must have efficiency to span the gap.

SteelChair wrote:

The NEUSA is also operationally complex. As some have pointed out, that hurts WN's vaunted efficiency. As pointed out, WN is not low cost, but i would assert that they are low price, thus they must have efficiency to span the gap.

There are actually a few markets in the Northeastern U.S. such as ALB, BUF, and PVD where WN has more market share than AA, DL, or UA.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

nycflyer99 wrote:

For what’s it’s worth, I will say that within the past 6 months I have flown BNA-LGA and MDW-LGA on WN and both flights were 100% full, so there definitely is some fanfare for WN here from what I see. Was even talking to one person on the MDW flight who drove all the way from Suffolk, which is ISP territory, for the flight out of LGA. Could definitely see them making something work out of JFK bridging that gap between ISP and LGA, making it easier for those in western Nassau to choose them over B6.

But why would WN enter JFK just to duke it out with B6 on a handful of non-core routes? WN doesn't need to be at JFK and that's why it isn't. There also isn't a gate/terminal arrangement for WN to be operationally efficient. Same goes for NK and F9.

BINGO! finally the answer thats most grounded in this conversation. its basically this. The resources and the potential offering don't make it work in its ideal form.

Moose135 wrote:

nycflyer99 wrote:

Was even talking to one person on the MDW flight who drove all the way from Suffolk, which is ISP territory, for the flight out of LGA.

I lived in Nassau County and worked for Newsday for many years. For a while, I was flying out to see clients in the Chicago area every month or two. We would grab an early WN flight (around a 7am departure) from ISP to MDW, spend the day, then return home that evening.

WN killed ISP-MDW non-stops, now you have to go through BWI - with a 6am departure - and spend 4+ hours flying time each way. LGA to MDW at least has a non-stop, albeit also leaving at 6am, but only 2 hours in the air. But you do pay for that convenience - looking at a sample booking for this coming Monday, the ISP-MDW non-stop is more than twice the price of the ISP-BWI-MDW round trip ($1,100 vs. $490 for an Anytime fare). Without a non-stop to MDW, I'm sure some people do prefer to drive to LGA, especially if the company is covering the cost.

I had previously mentioned that some demand was still there for WN ISP-MDW nonstop service after WN added MDW-LGA/EWR nonstop service but prior to WN dropping ISP-MDW nonstop service as mentioned in a post found at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1448475&start=50#p22305525.

WN is currently down to 3x daily on MDW-LGA from the 12x daily that WN was operating between MDW and NYC (6x MDW-LGA, 6x MDW-EWR) in 2019.

Demand for MDW-NYC would likely had exceeded the capacity available on WN MDW-LGA nonstop flights if the COVID-19 pandemic didn't happen, but the COVID-19 pandemic had significantly weakened demand for MDW-NYC nonstop service. Some of the MDW-NYC demand would also have shifted to ORD-EWR nonstop flights on other airlines if the COVID-19 pandemic didn't happen.

I had mentioned the possibility of B6 adding ORD-EWR nonstop service in order to fill in the void left behind by the loss of WN MDW-EWR nonstop service, but B6 has a much bigger FF base in NYC than WN, the AA-B6 Northeast Alliance partnership, and AA FF bases in both CHI and NYC to support EWR-ORD nonstop service.

While ISP is too far from the NYC boroughs and New Jersey to be a viable option to LGA, JFK, or EWR for those traveling to the NYC boroughs or New Jersey, WN re-adding ISP-MDW nonstop service would free up some capacity on LGA-MDW nonstop flights for those traveling to places in the NYC metro area that are closer to LGA than to ISP. WN would also be able to capture some of the Long Island to Chicago O&D that would otherwise be flying out of LGA/JFK or connecting to CHI from ISP if WN re-adds ISP-MDW nonstop service.

Another option is to massively expand JFK to accommodate most airliners
Thee new JFK with 5 runways with 8000000ft terminal with up to 180 MARS code F and 70 code C apron and 150mpax capacity
compared to 142 pax apron with 70mpax capacity in 2030 masterplan


PS: the terminal is based on Texcoco Airport with 3x length and width

BENAir01 wrote:

Yes, I believe it is exactly a price and slot issue. Slots less so at the height of corona, but JFK is more convenient for domestic flughts for relatively few peole vs LGA, and is much more expensive to fly to for an airline than EWR.

EWR is the most expensive airport in the region to operate out of. It has been a common complaint from United airlines.

LGA slots are much harder to come by

LAX772LR wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

For all intensive purposes

"intents and purposes"......

Really dude? What is it with you and your grammar checking obsession? Why not just let avgeeks talk about the subjects and cool it it with your snark?

chunhimlai wrote:

Another option is to massively expand JFK to accommodate most airliners
Thee new JFK with 5 runways with 8000000ft terminal with up to 180 MARS code F and 70 code C apron and 150mpax capacity
compared to 142 pax apron with 70mpax capacity in 2030 masterplan


PS: the terminal is based on Texcoco Airport with 3x length and width

You think NYS, and NYC, will allow a mega airport to be built in the Jamaica bay WILDLIFE REFUGE?

ZazuPIT wrote:

Really dude? What is it with you and your grammar checking obsession? Why not just let avgeeks talk about the subjects and cool it it with your snark?

Que? Um, what other posts have you seen me talk about someone's writing style on... the heck? lol.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

BENAir01 wrote:

Yes, I believe it is exactly a price and slot issue. Slots less so at the height of corona, but JFK is more convenient for domestic flughts for relatively few peole vs LGA, and is much more expensive to fly to for an airline than EWR.

EWR is sadly more expensive then JFK. People in return though do pay a higher average fare. There is also more domestic demand from EWR.

Given all the New York/New Jersey are operated by the very same Port Authority how in the world is there competition even in pricing seriously.

The prime driver at JFK are slots for global flights , while New York domestic traffic is tunnelled through LGA isn’t it and Newark gains from United’s massive hub .

I think the rhetorical questions; why doesn’t xyz operate from JFK/LHR/HND the three most slot constrained (Pre COVID) airports in the world have surely been ruminated over and over and ad nauseam for thirty years .

Just use the search tools or Google - All combinations of answers are available

chunhimlai wrote:

Another option is to massively expand JFK to accommodate most airliners
Thee new JFK with 5 runways with 8000000ft terminal with up to 180 MARS code F and 70 code C apron and 150mpax capacity
compared to 142 pax apron with 70mpax capacity in 2030 masterplan


PS: the terminal is based on Texcoco Airport with 3x length and width

You'd have better luck building that on the moon, than anywhere in NYC metro.

For not the least reason being that runway capacity isn't as much of a limiting factor for JFK as is airspace/ATC congestion for departures and arrivals.

airbazar wrote:

JFK has so much competition that the fares are already very low. IMO that's why you don't see LCC at JFK.
You'd be hard pressed to find lower fares from any other NYC airport.

Exactly. I just looked and you can still buy a $87 one way Basic Economy (or $107 for Main Cabin) fare from JFK-MCO on DL for early next week still! NK or F9 would be set up to fail as they wouldn’t be able to compete with B6 or DL as their fares are already low with both essentially being full service airlines.

LAX772LR wrote:

For not the least reason being that runway capacity isn't as much of a limiting factor for JFK as is airspace/ATC congestion for departures and arrivals.

Closing LGA would help a ton but the port authority or Cummo doubled down with LGA so that's not happening.

PHLspecial wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

For not the least reason being that runway capacity isn't as much of a limiting factor for JFK as is airspace/ATC congestion for departures and arrivals.

Closing LGA would help a ton but the port authority or Cummo doubled down with LGA so that's not happening.

Agreed. But with all the investments in the new/redone terminals, that's neverrrrrrr gonna happen.

Speaking of never happening:
Have they made a final decision on whether there's gonna be an AirTrain to the subway, at LaGuardia?

The problem with WN in NYC specifically is that they don't cater to the New York traveler. Their focus is more on traffic entering New York. B6 is the complete opposite they cater to the New York traveler, they essentially wrote the playbook. If WN were to enter JFK they would have to take the complete opposite approach that they did at LGA.

Not sure that's too much of the issue as I lived in New York and was the New York-based traveler and booked and flew them plenty of times. Southwest's biggest problem with New York City was avoiding New York City for say....30 years.

chunhimlai wrote:

Another option is to massively expand JFK to accommodate most airliners
Thee new JFK with 5 runways with 8000000ft terminal with up to 180 MARS code F and 70 code C apron and 150mpax capacity
compared to 142 pax apron with 70mpax capacity in 2030 masterplan


PS: the terminal is based on Texcoco Airport with 3x length and width

That will never happen. JFK might get a LGA treatment and rebuild some terminals, but I doubt anything like that will ever happen.

The only possible way we will ever get JFK replaced would require a HKG treatment to happen where the airport is built off into the New York Bay on artificial islands.

Personally, If it ever happens I wouldn't be surprised if a replaced and expanded JFK is built next to Staten Island, it is the most forgotten about borough anyways

INFINITI329 wrote:

The problem with WN in NYC specifically is that they don't cater to the New York traveler. Their focus is more on traffic entering New York. B6 is the complete opposite they cater to the New York traveler, they essentially wrote the playbook. If WN were to enter JFK they would have to take the complete opposite approach that they did at LGA.

What? If this was true (which it is not remotely close) WN wouldn't have been successful in many other large cities that they entered for the first time, Baltimore/Washington, Chicago, Denver, etc.

The reason for the lack of scale in NYC in general is the lack of consistent operations. WN cannot implement their world famous turn times and get planes back in the air if they have a ramp and ATC constraints.

Finally, WN is absolutely a LCC. They practically invented the low cost operating model. What they are not is a low fare carrier. They derive their low cost operations by improving efficiencies in their operations. They can't do that in the NYC market with any scale.

PHLspecial wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

For not the least reason being that runway capacity isn't as much of a limiting factor for JFK as is airspace/ATC congestion for departures and arrivals.

Closing LGA would help a ton but the port authority or Cummo doubled down with LGA so that's not happening.

Um, no. LGA isn't going to be closed and that was never on the table pre-renovations. Of the 3 airports (JFK, LGA, EWR), it was LGA that needed the most in terms of upgrades and renovations. EWR is getting the new Terminal One, and eventually, the work will begin on JFK, which will see T2 finally torn down, T1 expanded significantly and likely more modifications made to T4, plus the T7 replacement. All of these will be piecemeal and patchwork developments, costing billions, but realistically, the only viable option given the US aversion to spending huge sums of federal money on infrastructure projects, followed by facility taxes to help off-set the cost, as is the case in Europe and elsewhere.

LGA is problem for sure. It's too small, hemmed in, short runways, even with the terminal improvements and taxiway realignments that come with it, it will remain delay prone. LGA should exist as a facility that services business markets first and foremost, with a limited amount of LCC/ULCC traffic to help keep fares from inflating.

NY's 3 airport footprint isn't going to change, nor is it going to be replaced by one mega airport. That's just ludicrous.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

JFK is missing a common new theme for large airports: NK, F9, or WN service.

United is actively looking for slots and gates and regularly reports to investors it's having trouble securing them. If United, who is actively working at re-establishing a JFK operation, can't get slots, presumably then too Frontier, Southwest, and Spirit would have similar trouble getting slots and gates. I'm sure the biggest reason you're not seeing ULCCs and LCCs at JFK is because JFK is full.

TerminalD wrote:

AmericanAir88 wrote:

JFK is missing a common new theme for large airports: NK, F9, or WN service.

NK and F9 both fly out of the other two NYC airports. Those serve Manhattan and Queens/Brooklyn parts. However, people living closer to JFK or east do not have ULCC service. Please correct me if it is a price issue, but I am confused on why NK or F9 will not try to get into JFK. FLL, MIA, MCO, and SJU are some of the most popular routes out of JFK. All of which are covered by 2 airlines (usually B6 and DL).

A sample of JFK-MCO on either DL or B6 costs over 300 bucks ONE WAY. Why can't NK or F9 plop down a 100-200 RT to MCO. Again, please correct me if it is a price or slot issue.

An airport missing ULCCs would make sense if it was applied to the "Southwest effect." However, WN is not in JFK territory. Them leaving EWR may be an indicator for the NYC market, but LGA does fine yet has not expanded. Does NYC not prefer WN?

JFK could be "The JetBlue Effect"... in 2012. As a B6 flier, I have noticed an uptick in their prices over the last few years. Now, it is cheaper to fly AA and DL compared. B6 is no longer the "low-cost" airline it started out as. I love B6 and their work at JFK, but they are expanding rapidly at EWR and their prices.

The ironic thing about this post is that the largest carrier at JFK is a low-cost carrier and WN who you wish for is no longer considered an LCC by almost everybody.

B6 is moving away from being a “low cost carrier”. It is constantly having similar if not higher prices to the legacies. Sure it has its moments, but nothing like it used to be cost-wise. Still a great airline.

The post is more than just WN. I am also curious about NK or F9 entering the JFK market

Lootess wrote:

There is also the jetBlue factor, already an LCC large presence at JFK.

I would hardly call JetBlue an LCC. They're an LCC for their service level, but looking at the ticket price regardless of service level JetBlue is just plain expensive.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

ISP isn't exactly close to NYC. It is over an hour from Penn Station on the LIRR and not a taxi ride away. ISP's catchment does not really extend beyond LI and maybe coastal Connecticut that is very close to the Port Washington ferry.

It's close enough for a low-cost airport. I mean, it's about the same distance from New York as Luton and Stansted are from London and they're successful LCC airports. Even Stewart (SWF) could make a low-cost New York airport.

I see a lot of comments here about why some airports are better than others, but they're all comments of convenience. People seem to forget that when traveling on a budget convenience isn't always your top priority. That's the main difference between legacies and LCCs, where legacies focus on convenience (and charge a higher price for that) LCCs do the opposite. They seek to offer a lower price and if that is done by flying from a less convenient airport, then so be it.

The only question is, where can LCCs get the lowest price? Here's a major difference between Europe and America, where in America major airports are able to offer lower fees due to the economy of scale in Europe secondary airports are able to offer lower fees due to free pricing policy. In other words, they lower the fees in order to attract airlines. In America that's not allowed, in Europe it is. Major airports don't have to struggle to attract airlines, they come naturally so why charge them anything less? Smaller airports need every airline they can get and if airlines want a discount on the fees, then give them that discount. After all, without that discount they wouldn't fly there and the airport would be without an airline.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

B6 is moving away from being a “low cost carrier”. It is constantly having similar if not higher prices to the legacies. Sure it has its moments, but nothing like it used to be cost-wise. Still a great airline.

The post is more than just WN. I am also curious about NK or F9 entering the JFK market

Agreed on JetBlue, they're no low-cost airline.

Neither is Southwest by the way. They were a low-cost airline back when they started, but nowadays people fly them for convenience instead of money. Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant are the real LCCs of America. All of them chose Newark as their New York airport, not exactly because of the costs (it's known to be the most expensive airport in America) but because of ease of access. Newark isn't slot controlled, they can get in and the price difference with JFK and LaGuardia is negligible. If it's expensive anyway, what does it matter if it's expensive at one airport or the other?

Still Spirit and Frontier have some operations at LaGuardia. Not that they really need it, after all they got Newark to serve the New York market. But if you have the slots anyway, might as well use them. Then Frontier has some Long Island MacArthur operations and Allegiant some Newburgh-Stewart, but not as much as you might expect.

Anyway, all three American LCCs serve New York. They're just not picky on which airport, after all New York is New York. As a low-cost traveler you can't afford to be picky and these airlines know that.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Lootess wrote:

There is also the jetBlue factor, already an LCC large presence at JFK.

I would hardly call JetBlue an LCC. They're an LCC for their service level, but looking at the ticket price regardless of service level JetBlue is just plain expensive.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

ISP isn't exactly close to NYC. It is over an hour from Penn Station on the LIRR and not a taxi ride away. ISP's catchment does not really extend beyond LI and maybe coastal Connecticut that is very close to the Port Washington ferry.

It's close enough for a low-cost airport. I mean, it's about the same distance from New York as Luton and Stansted are from London and they're successful LCC airports. Even Stewart (SWF) could make a low-cost New York airport.

I see a lot of comments here about why some airports are better than others, but they're all comments of convenience. People seem to forget that when traveling on a budget convenience isn't always your top priority. That's the main difference between legacies and LCCs, where legacies focus on convenience (and charge a higher price for that) LCCs do the opposite. They seek to offer a lower price and if that is done by flying from a less convenient airport, then so be it.

The only question is, where can LCCs get the lowest price? Here's a major difference between Europe and America, where in America major airports are able to offer lower fees due to the economy of scale in Europe secondary airports are able to offer lower fees due to free pricing policy. In other words, they lower the fees in order to attract airlines. In America that's not allowed, in Europe it is. Major airports don't have to struggle to attract airlines, they come naturally so why charge them anything less? Smaller airports need every airline they can get and if airlines want a discount on the fees, then give them that discount. After all, without that discount they wouldn't fly there and the airport would be without an airline.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

B6 is moving away from being a “low cost carrier”. It is constantly having similar if not higher prices to the legacies. Sure it has its moments, but nothing like it used to be cost-wise. Still a great airline.

The post is more than just WN. I am also curious about NK or F9 entering the JFK market

Agreed on JetBlue, they're no low-cost airline.

Neither is Southwest by the way. They were a low-cost airline back when they started, but nowadays people fly them for convenience instead of money. Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant are the real LCCs of America. All of them chose Newark as their New York airport, not exactly because of the costs (it's known to be the most expensive airport in America) but because of ease of access. Newark isn't slot controlled, they can get in and the price difference with JFK and LaGuardia is negligible. If it's expensive anyway, what does it matter if it's expensive at one airport or the other?

Still Spirit and Frontier have some operations at LaGuardia. Not that they really need it, after all they got Newark to serve the New York market. But if you have the slots anyway, might as well use them. Then Frontier has some Long Island MacArthur operations and Allegiant some Newburgh-Stewart, but not as much as you might expect.

Anyway, all three American LCCs serve New York. They're just not picky on which airport, after all New York is New York. As a low-cost traveler you can't afford to be picky and these airlines know that.

ISP isn't LTN or STN. It's much smaller, doesn't have a carrier with a very sizable presence, and remains a regional airport in a large catchment area, but the catchment itself isn't that large. I don't think airlines flying out of ISP are that focused on luring flyers from JFK or LGA. It exists as a complement to the other two. Are city folks schlepping out to ISP for a cheap fare, probably, but the difference isn't likely to be all that significant when you factor in ground transportation.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

BENAir01 wrote:

Yes, I believe it is exactly a price and slot issue. Slots less so at the height of corona, but JFK is more convenient for domestic flughts for relatively few peole vs LGA, and is much more expensive to fly to for an airline than EWR.

EWR is sadly more expensive then JFK. People in return though do pay a higher average fare. There is also more domestic demand from EWR.

Huh, fascinating. It’s significantly cheaper for GA iirc, so I assumed it would be the same for the airlines.

NYC airports have extreme operating expenses. It wouldn't make sense for every LCC to operate from every airport. The NYC area is well covered by LCCs overall and has been excellent air coverage in general. It's not like anyone in that area doenst have access to flying lol

PatrickZ80 wrote:

I would hardly call JetBlue an LCC.

That's because you're confusing low cost carrier with low fare carrier, when the two are not synonymous.

LAX772LR wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

I would hardly call JetBlue an LCC.

That's because you're confusing low cost carrier with low fare carrier, when the two are not synonymous.

If I could thumbs up any replies this would be three at least !

ContinentalEWR wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

For not the least reason being that runway capacity isn't as much of a limiting factor for JFK as is airspace/ATC congestion for departures and arrivals.

Closing LGA would help a ton but the port authority or Cummo doubled down with LGA so that's not happening.

Um, no. LGA isn't going to be closed and that was never on the table pre-renovations. Of the 3 airports (JFK, LGA, EWR), it was LGA that needed the most in terms of upgrades and renovations. EWR is getting the new Terminal One, and eventually, the work will begin on JFK, which will see T2 finally torn down, T1 expanded significantly and likely more modifications made to T4, plus the T7 replacement. All of these will be piecemeal and patchwork developments, costing billions, but realistically, the only viable option given the US aversion to spending huge sums of federal money on infrastructure projects, followed by facility taxes to help off-set the cost, as is the case in Europe and elsewhere.

LGA is problem for sure. It's too small, hemmed in, short runways, even with the terminal improvements and taxiway realignments that come with it, it will remain delay prone. LGA should exist as a facility that services business markets first and foremost, with a limited amount of LCC/ULCC traffic to help keep fares from inflating.

NY's 3 airport footprint isn't going to change, nor is it going to be replaced by one mega airport. That's just ludicrous.

"with a limited amount of LCC/ULCC traffic to help keep fares from inflating"
Thats Funny. Low cost carriers usually cause prices to drop, as opposed to mainline carriers keeping prices high.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Lootess wrote:

There is also the jetBlue factor, already an LCC large presence at JFK.

I would hardly call JetBlue an LCC. They're an LCC for their service level, but looking at the ticket price regardless of service level JetBlue is just plain expensive.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

ISP isn't exactly close to NYC. It is over an hour from Penn Station on the LIRR and not a taxi ride away. ISP's catchment does not really extend beyond LI and maybe coastal Connecticut that is very close to the Port Washington ferry.

It's close enough for a low-cost airport. I mean, it's about the same distance from New York as Luton and Stansted are from London and they're successful LCC airports. Even Stewart (SWF) could make a low-cost New York airport.

I see a lot of comments here about why some airports are better than others, but they're all comments of convenience. People seem to forget that when traveling on a budget convenience isn't always your top priority. That's the main difference between legacies and LCCs, where legacies focus on convenience (and charge a higher price for that) LCCs do the opposite. They seek to offer a lower price and if that is done by flying from a less convenient airport, then so be it.

The only question is, where can LCCs get the lowest price? Here's a major difference between Europe and America, where in America major airports are able to offer lower fees due to the economy of scale in Europe secondary airports are able to offer lower fees due to free pricing policy. In other words, they lower the fees in order to attract airlines. In America that's not allowed, in Europe it is. Major airports don't have to struggle to attract airlines, they come naturally so why charge them anything less? Smaller airports need every airline they can get and if airlines want a discount on the fees, then give them that discount. After all, without that discount they wouldn't fly there and the airport would be without an airline.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

B6 is moving away from being a “low cost carrier”. It is constantly having similar if not higher prices to the legacies. Sure it has its moments, but nothing like it used to be cost-wise. Still a great airline.

The post is more than just WN. I am also curious about NK or F9 entering the JFK market

Agreed on JetBlue, they're no low-cost airline.

Neither is Southwest by the way. They were a low-cost airline back when they started, but nowadays people fly them for convenience instead of money. Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant are the real LCCs of America. All of them chose Newark as their New York airport, not exactly because of the costs (it's known to be the most expensive airport in America) but because of ease of access. Newark isn't slot controlled, they can get in and the price difference with JFK and LaGuardia is negligible. If it's expensive anyway, what does it matter if it's expensive at one airport or the other?

Still Spirit and Frontier have some operations at LaGuardia. Not that they really need it, after all they got Newark to serve the New York market. But if you have the slots anyway, might as well use them. Then Frontier has some Long Island MacArthur operations and Allegiant some Newburgh-Stewart, but not as much as you might expect.

Anyway, all three American LCCs serve New York. They're just not picky on which airport, after all New York is New York. As a low-cost traveler you can't afford to be picky and these airlines know that.

ISP isn't LTN or STN. It's much smaller, doesn't have a carrier with a very sizable presence, and remains a regional airport in a large catchment area, but the catchment itself isn't that large. I don't think airlines flying out of ISP are that focused on luring flyers from JFK or LGA. It exists as a complement to the other two. Are city folks schlepping out to ISP for a cheap fare, probably, but the difference isn't likely to be all that significant when you factor in ground transportation.

Spirit, Frontier & Allegiant are also in name only. Looked at booking PHX-DEN of F( and after the min paackage with 1 bag & carry on it was close to twice the cost. They are only LLC's if you travel with the clothes on your back and zero luggage! Oddly I prefer to wear more than 1 set of clothes over 3-4 days.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Lootess wrote:

There is also the jetBlue factor, already an LCC large presence at JFK.

I would hardly call JetBlue an LCC. They're an LCC for their service level, but looking at the ticket price regardless of service level JetBlue is just plain expensive.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

ISP isn't exactly close to NYC. It is over an hour from Penn Station on the LIRR and not a taxi ride away. ISP's catchment does not really extend beyond LI and maybe coastal Connecticut that is very close to the Port Washington ferry.

It's close enough for a low-cost airport. I mean, it's about the same distance from New York as Luton and Stansted are from London and they're successful LCC airports. Even Stewart (SWF) could make a low-cost New York airport.

I see a lot of comments here about why some airports are better than others, but they're all comments of convenience. People seem to forget that when traveling on a budget convenience isn't always your top priority. That's the main difference between legacies and LCCs, where legacies focus on convenience (and charge a higher price for that) LCCs do the opposite. They seek to offer a lower price and if that is done by flying from a less convenient airport, then so be it.

The only question is, where can LCCs get the lowest price? Here's a major difference between Europe and America, where in America major airports are able to offer lower fees due to the economy of scale in Europe secondary airports are able to offer lower fees due to free pricing policy. In other words, they lower the fees in order to attract airlines. In America that's not allowed, in Europe it is. Major airports don't have to struggle to attract airlines, they come naturally so why charge them anything less? Smaller airports need every airline they can get and if airlines want a discount on the fees, then give them that discount. After all, without that discount they wouldn't fly there and the airport would be without an airline.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

B6 is moving away from being a “low cost carrier”. It is constantly having similar if not higher prices to the legacies. Sure it has its moments, but nothing like it used to be cost-wise. Still a great airline.

The post is more than just WN. I am also curious about NK or F9 entering the JFK market

Agreed on JetBlue, they're no low-cost airline.

Neither is Southwest by the way. They were a low-cost airline back when they started, but nowadays people fly them for convenience instead of money. Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant are the real LCCs of America. All of them chose Newark as their New York airport, not exactly because of the costs (it's known to be the most expensive airport in America) but because of ease of access. Newark isn't slot controlled, they can get in and the price difference with JFK and LaGuardia is negligible. If it's expensive anyway, what does it matter if it's expensive at one airport or the other?

Still Spirit and Frontier have some operations at LaGuardia. Not that they really need it, after all they got Newark to serve the New York market. But if you have the slots anyway, might as well use them. Then Frontier has some Long Island MacArthur operations and Allegiant some Newburgh-Stewart, but not as much as you might expect.

Anyway, all three American LCCs serve New York. They're just not picky on which airport, after all New York is New York. As a low-cost traveler you can't afford to be picky and these airlines know that.

ISP isn't LTN or STN. It's much smaller, doesn't have a carrier with a very sizable presence, and remains a regional airport in a large catchment area, but the catchment itself isn't that large. I don't think airlines flying out of ISP are that focused on luring flyers from JFK or LGA. It exists as a complement to the other two. Are city folks schlepping out to ISP for a cheap fare, probably, but the difference isn't likely to be all that significant when you factor in ground transportation.

Lookinfg at the satallite view of both ISP looks to be able to expand to 20 gates if needed & 8 remote gate sacross the taxiway. Luttin has 23 possible gate spaces & 8 remote gates. IISP also has a longer main rnway & a shorter additional runway with space on each end to extend it. So not so much difference in useable size.

rbavfan wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

I would hardly call JetBlue an LCC. They're an LCC for their service level, but looking at the ticket price regardless of service level JetBlue is just plain expensive.



It's close enough for a low-cost airport. I mean, it's about the same distance from New York as Luton and Stansted are from London and they're successful LCC airports. Even Stewart (SWF) could make a low-cost New York airport.

I see a lot of comments here about why some airports are better than others, but they're all comments of convenience. People seem to forget that when traveling on a budget convenience isn't always your top priority. That's the main difference between legacies and LCCs, where legacies focus on convenience (and charge a higher price for that) LCCs do the opposite. They seek to offer a lower price and if that is done by flying from a less convenient airport, then so be it.

The only question is, where can LCCs get the lowest price? Here's a major difference between Europe and America, where in America major airports are able to offer lower fees due to the economy of scale in Europe secondary airports are able to offer lower fees due to free pricing policy. In other words, they lower the fees in order to attract airlines. In America that's not allowed, in Europe it is. Major airports don't have to struggle to attract airlines, they come naturally so why charge them anything less? Smaller airports need every airline they can get and if airlines want a discount on the fees, then give them that discount. After all, without that discount they wouldn't fly there and the airport would be without an airline.



Agreed on JetBlue, they're no low-cost airline.

Neither is Southwest by the way. They were a low-cost airline back when they started, but nowadays people fly them for convenience instead of money. Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant are the real LCCs of America. All of them chose Newark as their New York airport, not exactly because of the costs (it's known to be the most expensive airport in America) but because of ease of access. Newark isn't slot controlled, they can get in and the price difference with JFK and LaGuardia is negligible. If it's expensive anyway, what does it matter if it's expensive at one airport or the other?

Still Spirit and Frontier have some operations at LaGuardia. Not that they really need it, after all they got Newark to serve the New York market. But if you have the slots anyway, might as well use them. Then Frontier has some Long Island MacArthur operations and Allegiant some Newburgh-Stewart, but not as much as you might expect.

Anyway, all three American LCCs serve New York. They're just not picky on which airport, after all New York is New York. As a low-cost traveler you can't afford to be picky and these airlines know that.

ISP isn't LTN or STN. It's much smaller, doesn't have a carrier with a very sizable presence, and remains a regional airport in a large catchment area, but the catchment itself isn't that large. I don't think airlines flying out of ISP are that focused on luring flyers from JFK or LGA. It exists as a complement to the other two. Are city folks schlepping out to ISP for a cheap fare, probably, but the difference isn't likely to be all that significant when you factor in ground transportation.

Lookinfg at the satallite view of both ISP looks to be able to expand to 20 gates if needed & 8 remote gate sacross the taxiway. Luttin has 23 possible gate spaces & 8 remote gates. IISP also has a longer main rnway & a shorter additional runway with space on each end to extend it. So not so much difference in useable size.

Before we talk about expanding ISP’s gates, they should actually utilize the ones they have.

I’m actually kind of shocked jetblue hasn’t expanded to the airport.

rbavfan wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

I would hardly call JetBlue an LCC. They're an LCC for their service level, but looking at the ticket price regardless of service level JetBlue is just plain expensive.



It's close enough for a low-cost airport. I mean, it's about the same distance from New York as Luton and Stansted are from London and they're successful LCC airports. Even Stewart (SWF) could make a low-cost New York airport.

I see a lot of comments here about why some airports are better than others, but they're all comments of convenience. People seem to forget that when traveling on a budget convenience isn't always your top priority. That's the main difference between legacies and LCCs, where legacies focus on convenience (and charge a higher price for that) LCCs do the opposite. They seek to offer a lower price and if that is done by flying from a less convenient airport, then so be it.

The only question is, where can LCCs get the lowest price? Here's a major difference between Europe and America, where in America major airports are able to offer lower fees due to the economy of scale in Europe secondary airports are able to offer lower fees due to free pricing policy. In other words, they lower the fees in order to attract airlines. In America that's not allowed, in Europe it is. Major airports don't have to struggle to attract airlines, they come naturally so why charge them anything less? Smaller airports need every airline they can get and if airlines want a discount on the fees, then give them that discount. After all, without that discount they wouldn't fly there and the airport would be without an airline.



Agreed on JetBlue, they're no low-cost airline.

Neither is Southwest by the way. They were a low-cost airline back when they started, but nowadays people fly them for convenience instead of money. Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant are the real LCCs of America. All of them chose Newark as their New York airport, not exactly because of the costs (it's known to be the most expensive airport in America) but because of ease of access. Newark isn't slot controlled, they can get in and the price difference with JFK and LaGuardia is negligible. If it's expensive anyway, what does it matter if it's expensive at one airport or the other?

Still Spirit and Frontier have some operations at LaGuardia. Not that they really need it, after all they got Newark to serve the New York market. But if you have the slots anyway, might as well use them. Then Frontier has some Long Island MacArthur operations and Allegiant some Newburgh-Stewart, but not as much as you might expect.

Anyway, all three American LCCs serve New York. They're just not picky on which airport, after all New York is New York. As a low-cost traveler you can't afford to be picky and these airlines know that.

ISP isn't LTN or STN. It's much smaller, doesn't have a carrier with a very sizable presence, and remains a regional airport in a large catchment area, but the catchment itself isn't that large. I don't think airlines flying out of ISP are that focused on luring flyers from JFK or LGA. It exists as a complement to the other two. Are city folks schlepping out to ISP for a cheap fare, probably, but the difference isn't likely to be all that significant when you factor in ground transportation.

Lookinfg at the satallite view of both ISP looks to be able to expand to 20 gates if needed & 8 remote gate sacross the taxiway. Luttin has 23 possible gate spaces & 8 remote gates. IISP also has a longer main rnway & a shorter additional runway with space on each end to extend it. So not so much difference in useable size.

NY isnt London. And the US isnt Europe.

We have 3 large airports, not 2...And they do have room for expansion of operations; it’s just limited expansion. Look how much Jetblue has expanded in Newark over the past year.There aren’t those hard, fast slot controls that are in effect at the London airports.

On the broader front, the US doesnt have a large array of tertiary airports with direct transit to city centers like Europe. In the UK and Europe, ULCCs use airstairs to fill up planes with cheap tourist travelers than come en masse from city centers.

The model doesnt exist here because the infrastructure isnt in place to make it happen. Instead, the ULCC industry in the US relies on rural airports with cheap parking and pulling people from 2-3 hours away with a ridiculously cheap flight to a sun destination.

ISP and SWF have no direct rail links (Which is criminal in the case of Islip as the mainline of the railroad runs just north of the airport.)

Draw a 2 hour circle around ISP and you get water (no bridge to CT). All of a sudden you’re down to Suffolk County and the eastern edge of Nassau. Most of Suffolk county east of ISP is rural. Really isnt a large catchment area.

SWF has promise. It’s located at the juncture of two interstates. But working against it is the Hudson Valley and Catskills are sparsely populated and economically depressed. ALB to the north. BDL to the East. HPN south.And most importantly, you can get to Newark without ever crossing a bridge or going thru the urban core...less traffic

jfklganyc wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

ISP isn't LTN or STN. It's much smaller, doesn't have a carrier with a very sizable presence, and remains a regional airport in a large catchment area, but the catchment itself isn't that large. I don't think airlines flying out of ISP are that focused on luring flyers from JFK or LGA. It exists as a complement to the other two. Are city folks schlepping out to ISP for a cheap fare, probably, but the difference isn't likely to be all that significant when you factor in ground transportation.

Lookinfg at the satallite view of both ISP looks to be able to expand to 20 gates if needed & 8 remote gate sacross the taxiway. Luttin has 23 possible gate spaces & 8 remote gates. IISP also has a longer main rnway & a shorter additional runway with space on each end to extend it. So not so much difference in useable size.

NY isnt London. And the US isnt Europe.

We have 3 large airports, not 2...And they do have room for expansion of operations; it’s just limited expansion. Look how much Jetblue has expanded in Newark over the past year.There aren’t those hard, fast slot controls that are in effect at the London airports.

On the broader front, the US doesnt have a large array of tertiary airports with direct transit to city centers like Europe. In the UK and Europe, ULCCs use airstairs to fill up planes with cheap tourist travelers than come en masse from city centers.

The model doesnt exist here because the infrastructure isnt in place to make it happen. Instead, the ULCC industry in the US relies on rural airports with cheap parking and pulling people from 2-3 hours away with a ridiculously cheap flight to a sun destination.

ISP and SWF have no direct rail links (Which is criminal in the case of Islip as the mainline of the railroad runs just north of the airport.)

Draw a 2 hour circle around ISP and you get water (no bridge to CT). All of a sudden you’re down to Suffolk County and the eastern edge of Nassau. Most of Suffolk county east of ISP is rural. Really isnt a large catchment area.

SWF has promise. It’s located at the juncture of two interstates. But working against it is the Hudson Valley and Catskills are sparsely populated and economically depressed. ALB to the north. BDL to the East. HPN south.And most importantly, you can get to Newark without ever crossing a bridge or going thru the urban core...less traffic

Very good overview. I'd add SWF has little to no promise. Airlines have tried it for years and can't make it work. There has been a significant migration of NY'ers to the Hudson Valley and the Catskills, but it won't be enough to make SWF a meaningful base for further expansion now.