Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

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

JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:39 pm

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

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:15 am

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.
Why is flying so expensive? And why is flying well so much more?
 
Wneast
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:37 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:18 am

There are strong rumors WN wants to enter JFK and may have entered SYR so the could get favors to get into JFK
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13977
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:24 am

NYC was after WN for yearrrrrrsssss to enter JFK, and by the late '90s, were offering all manner of incentives to do so.

WN didn't bite.

"New Air" however, did-- we know them today as "JetBlue," and their very existence is testament to the fact that WN can F-up just as badly as the worst of 'em, when it comes to analyzing a market's potential.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:28 am

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.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 9620
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:36 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.


JFK has far more domestic O&D traffic than EWR. Not even close.

The OP is ignoring that, to some degree, proximate airports compete with each other. It's not like NYC lacks ULCC carriage.
 
jplatts
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:36 am

LAX772LR wrote:
NYC was after WN for yearrrrrrsssss to enter JFK, and by the late '90s, were offering all manner of incentives to do so.

WN didn't bite.

"New Air" however, did-- we know them today as "JetBlue," and their very existence is testament to the fact that WN can F-up just as badly as the worst of 'em, when it comes to analyzing a market's potential.


Most of the within-LGA perimeter markets that WN serves nonstop from LGA have stronger O&D demand from LGA than from JFK, but there are a few markets with WN nonstop service out of LGA such as MSY, MCO, and TPA that have higher PDEW's out of JFK than out of LGA, but both B6 and DL serve MSY, MCO, and TPA nonstop from JFK.

WN also serves the closer-in airports in some other cities such as DAL in Dallas, MDW in Chicago, HOU in Houston, DCA in Washington, DC, and MIA in Miami.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:22 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
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.


JFK has far more domestic O&D traffic than EWR. Not even close.

The OP is ignoring that, to some degree, proximate airports compete with each other. It's not like NYC lacks ULCC carriage.


Not true in either way. Both JFK domestic pax total and O&D is lower.

https://www.panynj.gov/content/dam/airp ... C_2019.pdf

https://www.panynj.gov/content/dam/airp ... C_2019.pdf
 
User avatar
YQBexYHZBGM
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 3:11 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:35 am

AmericanAir88 wrote:
However, people living closer to JFK or east do not have ULCC service.

"East" does have access to WN and F9 at ISP. However, ISP does not offer a true substitute for LCC service at JFK, as relatively few residents of Nassau County (let alone Queens) think of ISP when booking flights.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4443
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:52 am

LAX772LR wrote:
NYC was after WN for yearrrrrrsssss to enter JFK, and by the late '90s, were offering all manner of incentives to do so.

WN didn't bite.

"New Air" however, did-- we know them today as "JetBlue," and their very existence is testament to the fact that WN can F-up just as badly as the worst of 'em, when it comes to analyzing a market's potential.


WN missed the boat for sure in the 1990s but the industry and WN itself were very different in that time than now. WN struggles in NYC broadly. It could not make EWR work and walked away. POS ex-LGA isn't hot. Product wise, it's also very average. JetBlue succeeded because it understood from the start and throughout its expansion how the NYC air travel market works, and what it lacks, and what holes it could fill. Hence, the success that is B6 today.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:53 am

YQBexYHZBGM wrote:
AmericanAir88 wrote:
However, people living closer to JFK or east do not have ULCC service.

"East" does have access to WN and F9 at ISP. However, ISP does not offer a true substitute for LCC service at JFK, as relatively few residents of Nassau County (let alone Queens) think of ISP when booking flights.


As if there wasn’t enough cons to living on Long Island already..
 
B6BOSfan
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:11 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:15 am

ContinentalEWR wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
NYC was after WN for yearrrrrrsssss to enter JFK, and by the late '90s, were offering all manner of incentives to do so.

WN didn't bite.

"New Air" however, did-- we know them today as "JetBlue," and their very existence is testament to the fact that WN can F-up just as badly as the worst of 'em, when it comes to analyzing a market's potential.


WN missed the boat for sure in the 1990s but the industry and WN itself were very different in that time than now. WN struggles in NYC broadly. It could not make EWR work and walked away. POS ex-LGA isn't hot. Product wise, it's also very average. JetBlue succeeded because it understood from the start and throughout its expansion how the NYC air travel market works, and what it lacks, and what holes it could fill. Hence, the success that is B6 today.


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.
 
USAirALB
Posts: 2597
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:27 am

ContinentalEWR wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
NYC was after WN for yearrrrrrsssss to enter JFK, and by the late '90s, were offering all manner of incentives to do so.

WN didn't bite.

"New Air" however, did-- we know them today as "JetBlue," and their very existence is testament to the fact that WN can F-up just as badly as the worst of 'em, when it comes to analyzing a market's potential.


WN missed the boat for sure in the 1990s but the industry and WN itself were very different in that time than now. WN struggles in NYC broadly. It could not make EWR work and walked away. POS ex-LGA isn't hot. Product wise, it's also very average. JetBlue succeeded because it understood from the start and throughout its expansion how the NYC air travel market works, and what it lacks, and what holes it could fill. Hence, the success that is B6 today.

I wouldn't say its a WN/NYC issue, but rather a WN/Northeast issue as BOS doesn't perform that well either IIRC.

For all intensive purposes 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.

In the early 1990s when they started to expand East, they slowly built up cities with a range of some P2P routes, along with routes to other operating bases. MDW started with service to just MCI/STL/IND/CLE/DET/CMH/BNA IIRC, with MCI/STL being the "bases". BNA just had service to BHM/MDW/PHX/HOU. BWI started with just service to CLE/MDW.

Given the way they quickly expanded from PVD, I think they probably had hoped that PVD would eventually grow to emulate what they would have in BWI/MDW. At it's peak, I think PVD had flights to MCI/BNA/BWI/MDW/HOU/ISP/PHX/LAS/MCO/TPA/FLL. The PVD-ISP route was the only P2P route WN ever has flown in the Northeast, and I think it was flown 4x daily before being canned in 2002.

Despite having a large population, the region is just too poorly spread out for a true connecting hub. ALB might have been better, but there isn't any traffic there as in PVD which could tap into the BOS-region. Even though distances between some cities are quite large and not suited for driving, O/D traffic is low. For example, I find it interesting that WN never attempted say BUF to ALB, BUF to ISP, or BUF to PVD, even though they had no problem doing routes like SDF-BHM.

Adding JFK doesn't solve anything to WN's issues in NYC other than the fact that they can fly to destinations nonstop outside of LGA's perimeter, which they were able to do anyways from EWR.
RJ85, F70, E135, E140, E145, E70, E75, E90, CR2, CR7, CR9, 717, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 744ER, 752, 753, 762, 763ER, 772, 77E, 77W, 789, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343, 359, 388
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4443
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:33 am

B6BOSfan wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
NYC was after WN for yearrrrrrsssss to enter JFK, and by the late '90s, were offering all manner of incentives to do so.

WN didn't bite.

"New Air" however, did-- we know them today as "JetBlue," and their very existence is testament to the fact that WN can F-up just as badly as the worst of 'em, when it comes to analyzing a market's potential.


WN missed the boat for sure in the 1990s but the industry and WN itself were very different in that time than now. WN struggles in NYC broadly. It could not make EWR work and walked away. POS ex-LGA isn't hot. Product wise, it's also very average. JetBlue succeeded because it understood from the start and throughout its expansion how the NYC air travel market works, and what it lacks, and what holes it could fill. Hence, the success that is B6 today.


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.
 
nycflyer99
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 3:31 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:04 am

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.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:08 am

B6BOSfan wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
NYC was after WN for yearrrrrrsssss to enter JFK, and by the late '90s, were offering all manner of incentives to do so.

WN didn't bite.

"New Air" however, did-- we know them today as "JetBlue," and their very existence is testament to the fact that WN can F-up just as badly as the worst of 'em, when it comes to analyzing a market's potential.


WN missed the boat for sure in the 1990s but the industry and WN itself were very different in that time than now. WN struggles in NYC broadly. It could not make EWR work and walked away. POS ex-LGA isn't hot. Product wise, it's also very average. JetBlue succeeded because it understood from the start and throughout its expansion how the NYC air travel market works, and what it lacks, and what holes it could fill. Hence, the success that is B6 today.


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.


Same exact story for PHL.
 
Lootess
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:47 am

ContinentalEWR wrote:
B6BOSfan wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:

WN missed the boat for sure in the 1990s but the industry and WN itself were very different in that time than now. WN struggles in NYC broadly. It could not make EWR work and walked away. POS ex-LGA isn't hot. Product wise, it's also very average. JetBlue succeeded because it understood from the start and throughout its expansion how the NYC air travel market works, and what it lacks, and what holes it could fill. Hence, the success that is B6 today.


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.
 
B6BOSfan
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:11 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:11 am

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.


I'd be interested in knowing if passengers to both BNA and MDW were continuing their journeys on from there, or just seeking out those two cities. Southwest has really become hub-oriented now, and I've found they are routing most BOS travelers that want to go to -- say DEN or SLC -- to MDW, and travelers that want to go to southern locals -- like DAL, HOU, ect -- to BNA. Like any of the big airlines, their terminals all get super busy during the bank times.

I also wonder why they've never quite gained the traction in the Northeast as I've seen in other parts of the country. The PVD and MHT buildup seemed to be going well, but when BOS became available, they seemed to cut back on those two more Boston suburban locations to go "all-in" on BOS. It's left them with mediocre offerings/times at all three airports.

I suspect the dynamics in NYC are similar, a buildup at ISP, availability at LGA, and then EWR. Assets at many of the airports, but a master of -- nothing really.

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.
 
Lootess
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:17 am

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.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:49 am

It require a new mega airport who can serve more than 150mpax, which is unlikely in near future
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13977
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:31 am

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 :eek:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
luckyone
Posts: 3965
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:31 am

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.
 
USAirALB
Posts: 2597
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:58 am

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 :eek:

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.
RJ85, F70, E135, E140, E145, E70, E75, E90, CR2, CR7, CR9, 717, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 744ER, 752, 753, 762, 763ER, 772, 77E, 77W, 789, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343, 359, 388
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13977
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:20 am

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.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
TerminalD
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:32 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:24 am

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.
 
N757ST
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:46 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.



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.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10379
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:52 am

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.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14436
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:41 pm

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).
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4443
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:34 pm

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.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4443
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:36 pm

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.
 
TerminalD
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:32 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:37 pm

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.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4443
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:39 pm

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.
 
N757ST
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:59 pm

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.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:05 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3240
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:08 pm

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.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
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 2:19 pm

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.
 
jplatts
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:40 pm

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.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1617
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:55 pm

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.
 
jplatts
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:24 pm

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.
 
Abeam79
Posts: 390
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:16 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:17 pm

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.
 
jplatts
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:22 pm

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.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:34 pm

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
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6416
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:55 pm

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
 
ZazuPIT
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:32 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:31 pm

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?
 
N757ST
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:48 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


You think NYS, and NYC, will allow a mega airport to be built in the Jamaica bay WILDLIFE REFUGE?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13977
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:15 pm

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.
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

Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:18 pm

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
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13977
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:19 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

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.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
KMCOFlyer
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:32 am

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:20 pm

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.
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 891
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: JFK and the lack of low-cost carriers

Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:57 pm

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.

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