Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13984
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:09 pm

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?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:25 pm

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.
 
stlgph
Posts: 11362
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:36 pm

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.
if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
 
Insertnamehere
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:44 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:38 pm

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
Image

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 :)
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:46 pm

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.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4459
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:49 am

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.
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1354
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:54 am

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.
 
AmericanAir88
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed May 27, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:46 am

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
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4568
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:19 am

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.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4459
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:14 pm

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.
 
BENAir01
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 7:42 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:15 am

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.
Why is flying so expensive? And why is flying well so much more?
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 5162
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:58 am

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
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13984
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:53 am

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.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
rutankrd
Posts: 3093
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:08 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:32 am

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 !
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3812
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:59 am

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.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3812
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:05 am

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.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3812
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:23 am

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.
 
N757ST
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:41 am

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.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6425
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:57 am

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
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4459
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 2:28 pm

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.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14439
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:11 pm

I’ve been beating the drum for TTN for years, it’s closer than SWF to Manhattan, it’s about equal distance from
Manhattan as Islip. If you draw a circle around it you get some of the most affluent towns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, it’s close to the headquarters of major pharma companies like Bristol Myers Squib, Johnson & Johnson. It’s close to Princeton University, and it has a active rail line running through its property. The SEPTA line is less than a mile from the terminal and offers service to Center City Philadelphia, and the line has long been planned to have NJ Transit service restored (ended in 1983.

Need to extend the runway, and a new terminal, closer to rail line.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
deltairlines
Posts: 7236
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 4:47 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:41 pm

STT757 wrote:
I’ve been beating the drum for TTN for years, it’s closer than SWF to Manhattan, it’s about equal distance from
Manhattan as Islip. If you draw a circle around it you get some of the most affluent towns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, it’s close to the headquarters of major pharma companies like Bristol Myers Squib, Johnson & Johnson. It’s close to Princeton University, and it has a active rail line running through its property. The SEPTA line is less than a mile from the terminal and offers service to Center City Philadelphia, and the line has long been planned to have NJ Transit service restored (ended in 1983.

Need to extend the runway, and a new terminal, closer to rail line.


There's a few issues with TTN though.

For someone coming from New York, it's a major pain to get to. Now, if NJ Transit ever builds the West Trenton line from Bound Brook and if it can get direct Penn Station access (the Raritan line that it would come off of only gets off peak direct Penn access as it stands; you'd need a four track mainline between Newark/New York, a new Portal Bridge and a new pair of tubes under the Hudson to make that work), then it might start to work (if you get a terminal built over there). Road access isn't great coming from up north either - it's either take the Turnpike to I-195 but then have to drive through downtown Trenton, or take US-1 and all its stoplights to get to I-295...neither is really ideal.

Not to mention there's a good bit of money surrounding the TTN area, which would likely be strongly opposed to extending the runway.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14439
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:00 pm

deltairlines wrote:
STT757 wrote:
I’ve been beating the drum for TTN for years, it’s closer than SWF to Manhattan, it’s about equal distance from
Manhattan as Islip. If you draw a circle around it you get some of the most affluent towns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, it’s close to the headquarters of major pharma companies like Bristol Myers Squib, Johnson & Johnson. It’s close to Princeton University, and it has a active rail line running through its property. The SEPTA line is less than a mile from the terminal and offers service to Center City Philadelphia, and the line has long been planned to have NJ Transit service restored (ended in 1983.

Need to extend the runway, and a new terminal, closer to rail line.


There's a few issues with TTN though.

For someone coming from New York, it's a major pain to get to. Now, if NJ Transit ever builds the West Trenton line from Bound Brook and if it can get direct Penn Station access (the Raritan line that it would come off of only gets off peak direct Penn access as it stands; you'd need a four track mainline between Newark/New York, a new Portal Bridge and a new pair of tubes under the Hudson to make that work), then it might start to work (if you get a terminal built over there). Road access isn't great coming from up north either - it's either take the Turnpike to I-195 but then have to drive through downtown Trenton, or take US-1 and all its stoplights to get to I-295...neither is really ideal.

Not to mention there's a good bit of money surrounding the TTN area, which would likely be strongly opposed to extending the runway.


Well the Portal bridge replacement is already underway, and the Gateway tunnel is moving forward. Also despite what many people believe, many (most?)NY’s own cars. Just checking Google Maps right now:

Bay Eighth street Brooklyn -

TTN 1 hour 21 minutes

ISP 1 hour 38 minutes

SWF 1 hour 47 minutes
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4568
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:51 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
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.


Norwegian kind of made it work when they flew there, they always had good load factors and the Dublin flight was even upgraded from once to twice daily. It was the problems with the 737MAX that killed the route, not the route itself. If they could have kept using the MAX, this route might just still have been in use.

Keep in mind Norwegian had shuttle buses running between the airport and New York Grand Central station, like is customary with secondary airports in Europe. Good ground connections are essential to make secondary airports work, specially for arriving passengers at this airport getting to their final destination. Most passengers on this route were Europeans, but that doesn't matter. Passengers are passengers, regardless where they're from. And Europeans are used to taking a bus from the airport to their final destination, just as long as that bus is available.

If Norwegian can make it work, so can other airlines. It would be a nice base for Allegiant, which already has some flights there. Sure flying out of Stewart would be cheaper than flying out of Newark for them, and with good ground transportation Stewart doesn't have to be inconvenient. In the long term you could even think about upgrading and extending the railway line that runs from Salisbury Mills to Hoboken, from Salisbury Mills it can easily be extended to Stewart Airport. In the short term a bus can provide that connection.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:13 pm

Now that WN has left EWR, I think it's only a matter of time before they try out something at JFK. I mean, didn't they only launch flights into LGA only within the last decade or so? Likely only because they took over the slots from AirTran when they merged with them?

STT757 wrote:
I’ve been beating the drum for TTN for years, it’s closer than SWF to Manhattan, it’s about equal distance from
Manhattan as Islip. If you draw a circle around it you get some of the most affluent towns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, it’s close to the headquarters of major pharma companies like Bristol Myers Squib, Johnson & Johnson. It’s close to Princeton University, and it has a active rail line running through its property. The SEPTA line is less than a mile from the terminal and offers service to Center City Philadelphia, and the line has long been planned to have NJ Transit service restored (ended in 1983.

Need to extend the runway, and a new terminal, closer to rail line.


TTN is one of those weird markets like ACY where I'm surprised the State hasn't invested more to have a bigger airport. I guess ACY is controlled by Spirit, but either way it would be nice to see TTN have a terminal that is something more than just a shack considering it's the State Capitol. It's sort of along the same lines as why ILG has always been shunned with commercial aircraft service.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14439
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:22 pm

N649DL wrote:
Now that WN has left EWR, I think it's only a matter of time before they try out something at JFK. I mean, didn't they only launch flights into LGA only within the last decade or so? Likely only because they took over the slots from AirTran when they merged with them?

STT757 wrote:
I’ve been beating the drum for TTN for years, it’s closer than SWF to Manhattan, it’s about equal distance from
Manhattan as Islip. If you draw a circle around it you get some of the most affluent towns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, it’s close to the headquarters of major pharma companies like Bristol Myers Squib, Johnson & Johnson. It’s close to Princeton University, and it has a active rail line running through its property. The SEPTA line is less than a mile from the terminal and offers service to Center City Philadelphia, and the line has long been planned to have NJ Transit service restored (ended in 1983.

Need to extend the runway, and a new terminal, closer to rail line.


TTN is one of those weird markets like ACY where I'm surprised the State hasn't invested more to have a bigger airport. I guess ACY is controlled by Spirit, but either way it would be nice to see TTN have a terminal that is something more than just a shack considering it's the State Capitol. It's sort of along the same lines as why ILG has always been shunned with commercial aircraft service.


WN entered LaGuardia when they bought ATA's assets.

https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/Southwest-to-launch-LaGuardia-service-after-purchasing-ATA-slots
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4459
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:27 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
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.


Norwegian kind of made it work when they flew there, they always had good load factors and the Dublin flight was even upgraded from once to twice daily. It was the problems with the 737MAX that killed the route, not the route itself. If they could have kept using the MAX, this route might just still have been in use.

Keep in mind Norwegian had shuttle buses running between the airport and New York Grand Central station, like is customary with secondary airports in Europe. Good ground connections are essential to make secondary airports work, specially for arriving passengers at this airport getting to their final destination. Most passengers on this route were Europeans, but that doesn't matter. Passengers are passengers, regardless where they're from. And Europeans are used to taking a bus from the airport to their final destination, just as long as that bus is available.

If Norwegian can make it work, so can other airlines. It would be a nice base for Allegiant, which already has some flights there. Sure flying out of Stewart would be cheaper than flying out of Newark for them, and with good ground transportation Stewart doesn't have to be inconvenient. In the long term you could even think about upgrading and extending the railway line that runs from Salisbury Mills to Hoboken, from Salisbury Mills it can easily be extended to Stewart Airport. In the short term a bus can provide that connection.


The MAX-8 problems and the Dublin Airport fees are what killed the route. The buses were great, but you're looking at an almost 2 hour ride into NYC. Alliegiant is the only airline I can see making SWF work.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14439
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:31 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
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.


Norwegian kind of made it work when they flew there, they always had good load factors and the Dublin flight was even upgraded from once to twice daily. It was the problems with the 737MAX that killed the route, not the route itself. If they could have kept using the MAX, this route might just still have been in use.

Keep in mind Norwegian had shuttle buses running between the airport and New York Grand Central station, like is customary with secondary airports in Europe. Good ground connections are essential to make secondary airports work, specially for arriving passengers at this airport getting to their final destination. Most passengers on this route were Europeans, but that doesn't matter. Passengers are passengers, regardless where they're from. And Europeans are used to taking a bus from the airport to their final destination, just as long as that bus is available.

If Norwegian can make it work, so can other airlines. It would be a nice base for Allegiant, which already has some flights there. Sure flying out of Stewart would be cheaper than flying out of Newark for them, and with good ground transportation Stewart doesn't have to be inconvenient. In the long term you could even think about upgrading and extending the railway line that runs from Salisbury Mills to Hoboken, from Salisbury Mills it can easily be extended to Stewart Airport. In the short term a bus can provide that connection.


The MAX-8 problems and the Dublin Airport fees are what killed the route. The buses were great, but you're looking at an almost 2 hour ride into NYC. Alliegiant is the only airline I can see making SWF work.


But with Allegiant at EWR, why would they launch SWF?
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4568
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:07 pm

STT757 wrote:
But with Allegiant at EWR, why would they launch SWF?


Costs? If it's significantly cheaper to fly out of Stewart compared to Newark they might be tempted to go for these cost savings. It's no secret that Newark is the most expensive airport in the USA to fly into, JFK and LaGuardia are hardly cheaper but Stewart can offer fares that are more in line with what LCCs are willing to pay.

Due to these cost savings, they'd be able to offer lower fees out of Stewart than they could out of Newark. For an LCC like Allegiant the price is their most important marketing instrument, it's the reason people fly them. What does it matter if it's a bit inconvenient if that saves them money.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4459
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:14 pm

STT757 wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:

Norwegian kind of made it work when they flew there, they always had good load factors and the Dublin flight was even upgraded from once to twice daily. It was the problems with the 737MAX that killed the route, not the route itself. If they could have kept using the MAX, this route might just still have been in use.

Keep in mind Norwegian had shuttle buses running between the airport and New York Grand Central station, like is customary with secondary airports in Europe. Good ground connections are essential to make secondary airports work, specially for arriving passengers at this airport getting to their final destination. Most passengers on this route were Europeans, but that doesn't matter. Passengers are passengers, regardless where they're from. And Europeans are used to taking a bus from the airport to their final destination, just as long as that bus is available.

If Norwegian can make it work, so can other airlines. It would be a nice base for Allegiant, which already has some flights there. Sure flying out of Stewart would be cheaper than flying out of Newark for them, and with good ground transportation Stewart doesn't have to be inconvenient. In the long term you could even think about upgrading and extending the railway line that runs from Salisbury Mills to Hoboken, from Salisbury Mills it can easily be extended to Stewart Airport. In the short term a bus can provide that connection.


The MAX-8 problems and the Dublin Airport fees are what killed the route. The buses were great, but you're looking at an almost 2 hour ride into NYC. Alliegiant is the only airline I can see making SWF work.


But with Allegiant at EWR, why would they launch SWF?


EWR is a pricey airport to access. They could move to SWF and tap into some of the catchment.
 
User avatar
usdcaguy
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:41 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:34 am

ContinentalEWR wrote:
Lootess wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:

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.


Though it was going through a very hard time back then, US was never “just weeks away” from Ch. 7 in 2004. It wasn’t until 2005 that US even had access to money that HP would have provided as part of the merger. It was filing for Chapter 11 that saved US from creditors until it was bought by HP, who was likely waiting until all the old contracts had been put through the ringer before formally popping the question.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4459
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:42 am

usdcaguy wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
Lootess wrote:

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.


Though it was going through a very hard time back then, US was never “just weeks away” from Ch. 7 in 2004. It wasn’t until 2005 that US even had access to money that HP would have provided as part of the merger. It was filing for Chapter 11 that saved US from creditors until it was bought by HP, who was likely waiting until all the old contracts had been put through the ringer before formally popping the question.


Not exactly. In 2004, USAirways hired an investment bank to try and sell off assets including the NE Shuttle, gates in BOS, LGA, and other NE airports, amid a c-suite push at US to get concessions from the unions. The airline filed for Chapter 11 a second time in its history in September 2004 and there was plenty of chatter then that it was just weeks away from liquidation.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos