Effective June 28, JetBlue will begin BOS-SAN which will be a daily service. Effective June 30, JetBlue will begin BOS-AUA which will operate Saturday's only.

BOS-SAN Flight 411 Departs 5:30PM Arrives 8:35PM
SAN-BOS Flight 412 Departs 9:30PM Arrives 6:10AM

BOS-AUA Flight 773 Departs 7:00AM Arrives 11:45AM
AUA-BOS Flight 774 Departs 12:45PM Arrives 5:35PM

Well there goes AA's BOS-SAN flight.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 1): Well there goes AA's BOS-SAN flight.

Agreed. Maybe they'll simply change it to SAN-MIA.

I thought that the A320's range was just a little short for the BOS-SAN route. Is that not the case?

Quoting Lindy Field (Reply 3): I thought that the A320's range was just a little short for the BOS-SAN route. Is that not the case?

BOS-SAN is 2,249 nm according to Great Circle Mapper http://gc.kls2.com/ and A.net's aircraft DB indicates a range of 2,615-3,065 nm for the A320, assuming 150 pax and also depending on engine model and reserve options.

[Edited 2007-04-12 20:00:54]

Quote: Well there goes AA's BOS-SAN flight.

Not necessarily.

AA226
dp SAN 8:45 AM
ar BOS 5:20 PM
EQP: 757

This is a daylight flight - B6 is a night flight.

AA225
dp BOS 4:00 PM
ar SAN 7:00 PM
EQP: 757

Similar times BOS-SAN, yes.

Quote: I thought that the A320's range was just a little short for the BOS-SAN route. Is that not the case?

SAN-BOS = 2249 nm.
SAN-JFK = 2125 nm.

Normally, this is within the A320's range; however, winter jetstream problems will mean a LOT of fuel stops westbound.

The only worry I would have is since this is an overnight flight, the outbound SAN-BOS depends on an on-time arrival from Boston. Because of SAN's VERY strict curfew, if you're not airborne by 11:30, you're either going to pay $$$$ to house the travellers or $$$$$$ for a curfew fine.

There's about a two hour window provided, but in winter, if that flight is late leaving BOS and has to stop for fuel enroute, you could conceivably have a lot of cancelled departures to BOS.

I think its great we're adding more flights to SAN! now if we could only add a flight to Florida...or anywhere else on the jetblue map! as for the AUA flights, i wonder if it'll go daily during peak travel times...

~B6FA4ever

Quoting Commavia (Reply 1): Well there goes AA's BOS-SAN flight.

I don't see why you think AA will stop the flight? BOS has huge demand to California and should have no problem supporting 2 daily flights to SAN. If anything, this will only increase the market.

Quoting B752OS (Reply 7): I don't see why you think AA will stop the flight? BOS has huge demand to California and should have no problem supporting 2 daily flights to SAN. If anything, this will only increase the market.

AA doesn't like competing with jetBlue in niche markets, and this is one of them. American Airlines will definitely keep the route going over the summer and see how it performs versus jetBlue. There is no doubt that the route is at high risk of being discontinued. AA might keep it going, but I doubt it. They can use the plane somewhere else without jetBlue competing.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 8): AA doesn't like competing with jetBlue in niche markets, and this is one of them. American Airlines will definitely keep the route going over the summer and see how it performs versus jetBlue. There is no doubt that the route is at high risk of being discontinued. AA might keep it going, but I doubt it. They can use the plane somewhere else without jetBlue competing.

Then I would expect B6 to increase to 2 daily IF AA is to pull out.

Hallelujah! How did I miss seeing that? Oh this is wonderful news; thank you for finally seeing the SAN light, Blue! (I know, I really do need to get a life...   )

I like your point '747 -- maybe AA will leave their flight (and could they actually add MIA too?) Where are you MAH4546? Got any update on that for us?

The last numbers I've seen are from DOT 3Q06 which shows SAN-BOS O&D at 619; I sure don't see a problem with that count supporting 2 n/s a day (plus B6 should carry some connecting folks as well, right?)

Looks like B6 will be spreading out a bit at Lindbergh. Assuming there are no major changes to their existing flights, there will be a couple of Blue-tails at T2W simultaneously (and at a pretty busy time of night.)

(Is this the appropriate time to beg B6 to consider that SAN-MCO flight I've been screaming about?   )

Thank you for listening JetBlue; this is a great move!

bb

Quoting B752OS (Reply 9): Then I would expect B6 to increase to 2 daily IF AA is to pull out.

Pending aircraft availability, so would I.

American Airlines pulled out of Boston-San Jose, Boston-Orlando, Boston-Ft. Lauderdale, New York City-Oakland, New York City-Phoenix, New York City-San Jose, and New York City-Long Beach, mostly all (all except BOS-SJC, IIRC) due to jetBlue.

This isn't a question of American Airlines and jetBlue being able to fill planes, they both will. The question is if American Airlines, who will have to match jetBlue's fares on their higher cost structure, will be able to keep the route profitable. The answer is most likely no. They've suffered enough on BOS-LAX and BOS-SFO, and jetBlue doesn't even compete directly on those, yet.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 10): (Is this the appropriate time to beg B6 to consider that SAN-MCO flight I've been screaming about? )

If you see jetBlue do Florida-San Diego, put your money on SAN-FLL, not SAN-MCO. Higher yielding market, more business travel, and slightly larger. jetBlue's only Florida-California routes go to Ft. Lauderdale, and after the disaster on Orlando-Burbank (which was announced as being discontinued something like four weeks after the first flight), I don't think that will change.

[Edited 2007-04-12 20:56:49]

This long-awaited service will definitely perform very well. BOS-SAN seems to be a way underserved market and JetBlue has brand name recognition in both markets, so it will be successful. BOS-AUA will hopefully mirror the success that JFK-AUA now is.

Has anyone recognized that B6 hasn't announced a new city since (ironically) February 14th? It's probably best for B6 to "lay low" by connecting the dots instead of announcing new cities as the media of any new cities would probably report, "JetBlue, the airline which stranded its customers on jets for 10 hours during a Valentine's Day snow storm, has announced that it will launch service to XXXXXX, XX". JetBlue doesn't want any negative attention as its first true interaction with new cities, so it's best to connect the dots between cities that already know the brand. Besides, there are already over 50 markets in JetBlue's network that need a lot of connecting, and connecting the dots is arguably much cheaper to do than to start a whole new station.

On that note, does anyone know what B6's gate situation is at SAN? Last time I was there they were using 37 and 38, but now with three red-eyes, what's going to happen?

JetBluefan1

BOS-SFO has enough biotech / tech / research type traffic that JetBlue will probably want a piece of that, too. Why don't they hurry up and order some A319s so they can actually fly this stuff?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13): BOS-SFO has enough biotech / tech / research type traffic that JetBlue will probably want a piece of that, too. Why don't they hurry up and order some A319s so they can actually fly this stuff?

B6 is starting SFO-JFK and SFO-BOS next month.

Quoting Lindy Field (Reply 3): I thought that the A320's range was a little short for the BOS-SAN route. Is that not the case?

Actually BOS-SAN and BOS-LGB are within a dozen nautical miles of the same distance point-to-point. Jet Blue up until now been playing games "dual filing" flight plans to the west coast. That sort of thing is normally reserved for the ultra long haul set like Singapore and Thai Air on trans-pacific flights. But until a Fed ramp checks them and finds out they have below minimum fuel at destination nothing will be done. Still it's most unlikely a B6 A320 will land on top of the Laural Parking Garage with fuel exhaustion.

This is great news! I hope that AA keeps BOS-SAN as well though, especially since it isn't a returning red-eye from SAN.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 5): There's about a two hour window provided, but in winter, if that flight is late leaving BOS and has to stop for fuel enroute, you could conceivably have a lot of cancelled departures to BOS.

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 15): Actually BOS-SAN and BOS-LGB are within a dozen nautical miles of the same distance point-to-point.

And I don't think either of these flights are as long as either JFK-OAK/SFO or BOS-OAK/SFO!
I dare say that there will not be "lots" of fuel stops - its a much overplayed theme here on airliners.net. I hear that, yes, there are the occasional tech stops but they are rare even in the winter. Much more frequent, although still somewhat rare, are fuel stops out of BUR eastbound.

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 15): Jet Blue up until now been playing games "dual filing" flight plans to the west coast.

What does that mean?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 1): Well there goes AA's BOS-SAN flight.

not necessarily. BOS has enough demand for the CA market to handle 2 dailies...

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 4): BOS-SAN is 2,249 nm according to Great Circle Mapper http://gc.kls2.com/ and A.net's aircraft DB indicates a range of 2,615-3,065 nm for the A320, assuming 150 pax and also depending on engine model and reserve options.

You might want to factor in that B6's A320's are somewhat heavier because of the entertainment systems on board... at least compared to a UA A320.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 12): On that note, does anyone know what B6's gate situation is at SAN? Last time I was there they were using 37 and 38, but now with three red-eyes, what's going to happen?

I was kind of asking the same question...

Quoting SANFan (Reply 10): Looks like B6 will be spreading out a bit at Lindbergh. Assuming there are no major changes to their existing flights, there will be a couple of Blue-tails at T2W simultaneously (and at a pretty busy time of night.)

I've looked again at (available) schedules and noticed that apparently their SAN-IAD flight is even later now (at 11:10 PM, which is dangerously close to the curfew...

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 5): The only worry I would have is since this is an overnight flight, the outbound SAN-BOS depends on an on-time arrival from Boston. Because of SAN's VERY strict curfew, if you're not airborne by 11:30, you're either going to pay $$$$ to house the travellers or $$$$$$ for a curfew fine.

and I don't see the BOS flight even listed yet on the on-line schedule. I want to wait until all the schedules are in so it can be verified just to make sure B6 hasn't done something major (like cancelling the SAN-IAD flight or something.)

B6 has used 37 and 38 but lately has been only in 37 (with no need for a second gate.) As there are over 50 RON a/c per night at Lindbergh (with 41 gates), after 9PM, real estate is very tight so looks like more towing may be necessary.

I thought B6 was real tight on AirBi; anyone know where this plane came from? (It could almost be added op's on an existing a/c but it starts out of BOS kind of early in the evening for that...)

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 11): If you see jetBlue do Florida-San Diego, put your money on SAN-FLL, not SAN-MCO.

You're right MAH'. I usually beg for SAN-Florida, being quite happy for MCO, MIA, FLL, TPA, or Pensacola, but this time I thought maybe B6 would be watching MCO closely as FL has already announced SAN-MCO (2x weekly) and WN is really growing that Florida station big-time (along with fairly substantial growth in SAN). I also thought gates were very scarce at Lauderdale and B6 was pretty much maxed out there.

If B6 would give us a FLL flight, I would be more than happy! [Can anyone in San Diego say F-O-C-U-S C-I-T-Y?] Maybe we should start practicing...   

bb

Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 19): You might want to factor in that B6's A320's are somewhat heavier because of the entertainment systems on board... at least compared to a UA A320.

Yes, but jetBlue's A320s only have 150 Y seats, which is a very low-density configuration for a one-class A320.

Quoting HighFlyer9790 (Reply 18): Quoting Commavia (Reply 1): Well there goes AA's BOS-SAN flight. not necessarily. BOS has enough demand for the CA market to handle 2 dailies...

There is no doubt in that. Though will AA deal with the drop in fares and yield that jetBlue's entry will be bringing? The answer is probably no.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 20): I also thought gates were very scarce at Lauderdale and B6 was pretty much maxed out there.

Yes, they are, but not in the early morning and late at night.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 11): American Airlines pulled out of Boston-San Jose, Boston-Orlando, Boston-Ft. Lauderdale, New York City-Oakland, New York City-Phoenix, New York City-San Jose, and New York City-Long Beach, mostly all (all except BOS-SJC, IIRC) due to jetBlue.

Didn't SJC lose a lot of Transcon service once AA scaled back there? I know they used to fly SJC-JFK, did they also do MIA-SJC?

Quoting HighFlyer9790 (Reply 18): not necessarily. BOS has enough demand for the CA market to handle 2 dailies...

There is no doubt BOS has a lot of demand to California, on straight O&D, it has to be a top 3 east coast market. But AA has enjoyed being the only airline on the route and a B6 entry could and probably will lower yields on the route. As I mentioned, if AA decides to stop the route in favor of sedning the 752 for a route out of ORD or DFW, I would bet that b6 will add a second daily flight. The other benefit is that with the lower yields come more daily passengers. We shall soon see.

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 15): Still it's most unlikely a B6 A320 will land on top of the Laural Parking Garage with fuel exhaustion.

Quoting Richierich (Reply 17): I dare say that there will not be "lots" of fuel stops - its a much overplayed theme here on airliners.net. I hear that, yes, there are the occasional tech stops but they are rare even in the winter. Much more frequent, although still somewhat rare, are fuel stops out of BUR eastbound.

Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 19): You might want to factor in that B6's A320's are somewhat heavier because of the entertainment systems on board... at least compared to a UA A320.

As MAH just said, JetBlue's configuration is now only with 150 seats. Compared with last year, this is 6 less seats, 6 less entertainment systems, 6 less passengers (on a full flight), and one less flight attendant. I have a feeling that the relief in weight will help with the fuel stops that JetBlue sometimes has to make over the summer.

JetBluefan1

Quoting B752OS (Reply 22): There is no doubt BOS has a lot of demand to California, on straight O&D, it has to be a top 3 east coast market. But AA has enjoyed being the only airline on the route and a B6 entry could and probably will lower yields on the route. As I mentioned, if AA decides to stop the route in favor of sedning the 752 for a route out of ORD or DFW, I would bet that b6 will add a second daily flight. The other benefit is that with the lower yields come more daily passengers. We shall soon see.

Quoting B752OS (Reply 7): I don't see why you think AA will stop the flight? BOS has huge demand to California and should have no problem supporting 2 daily flights to SAN. If anything, this will only increase the market.

Think this may lead to widebody equipment on the route by AA? Wishful thinking, but may as well pose the question. Do you think AA could respond by temporarily making the route a 763?

Or how about this scenario '747: AA sees B6 starting to ramp up its SAN service, thinks Florida might be next, and AA rushes in with its own pre-emptive strike of SAN-MIA (starting this summer!)

Ahhh, California Dreamin'...

bb

Quoting SANFan (Reply 25): Or how about this scenario '747: AA sees B6 starting to ramp up its SAN service, thinks Florida might be next, and AA rushes in with its own pre-emptive strike of SAN-MIA (starting this summer!) Ahhh, California Dreamin'...

Sounds good... Whatever it takes to get SAN-MIA back again!   

Quoting B752OS (Reply 22): Didn't SJC lose a lot of Transcon service once AA scaled back there? I know they used to fly SJC-JFK, did they also do MIA-SJC?

Yes. They had offered MIA-SJC, JFK-SJC, and BOS-SJC. They also offered IAD-SJC for a short time and announced, but never started, RDU-SJC.

Quoting B752OS (Reply 22): There is no doubt BOS has a lot of demand to California, on straight O&D, it has to be a top 3 east coast market.

Overall, probably, right after NYC and WAS, but not far ahead of MIA and ATL. But from, say, LAX, no.

1) NYC-LAX: 6668 daily passengers (JFK+EWR+LGA)
2) WAS-LAX: 3584 daily passengers (IAD+DCA+BWI)
3) ATL-LAX: 2220 daily passengers
4) MIA-LAX: 2128 daily passengers (MIA+FLL)
5) PHL-LAX: 1842 daily passengers
6) BOS-LAX: 1743 daily passengers

Though Boston probably sees more leakage to LGB than any of the others sans JFK. Those numbers right there demonstrate why people are questioning the future of AA's BOS-SAN route. jetBlue has eaten into trans-con yield and other carriers performance's at BOS more than any other airport. Great for consumers, but it sucks for AA and others, because Boston-California is no longer the cash cow it used to be.

[Edited 2007-04-13 02:53:53]

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 27): Overall, probably, right after NYC and WAS, but not far ahead of MIA and ATL. But from, say, LAX, no. 1) NYC-LAX: 6668 daily passengers (JFK+EWR+LGA) 2) WAS-LAX: 3584 daily passengers (IAD+DCA+BWI) 3) ATL-LAX: 2220 daily passengers 4) MIA-LAX: 2128 daily passengers (MIA+FLL) 5) PHL-LAX: 1842 daily passengers 6) BOS-LAX: 1743 daily passengers Though Boston probably sees more leakage to LGB than any of the others sans JFK. Those numbers right there demonstrate why people are questioning the future of AA's BOS-SAN route. jetBlue has eaten into trans-con yield and other carriers performance's at BOS more than any other airport. Great for consumers, but it sucks for AA and others, because Boston-California is no longer the cash cow it used to be.

I believe those numbers you have taken are from the late Fall, early winter. In the Spring and Summer, BOS has more than 2,400 daily pax to LAX. A side note, UA added a third daily flight between LAX and BOS after AA dropped their 4th daily. I would only say yields have been hurt, not loads. There are still 8 daily flights between 3 different carries on BOS-LAX, 6 daily, soon to be 8 daily between BOS-SFO on 3 different carriers, so BOS has great California service for a non-hub airport.

Also, I was talking about California as a whole and from just one airport, only BOS. You could easily add in the 300 daily pax on PVD-LAX and give BOS+PVD to 2,043.

An interesting thing is the large demand between BOS-SFO, it's pretty much the same size. If you remade the list for SFO, it would look like this

1. NYC - 4,685
2. BOS - 1,850
3. WAS (IAD, DCA, BWI) - 1,700

I guess we'll have to wait and see what AA does. My bet is they keep the route with the daily 757-200.

[Edited 2007-04-13 04:28:36]

Quoting B752OS (Reply 28): I believe those numbers you have taken are from the late Fall, early winter.

No, they are April through June. None the less, it's a moot point, because all routes pretty much share the same traffic patterns. So as BOS goes up, so do the rest.

Quoting B752OS (Reply 28): I would only say yields have been hurt, not loads

Both. As a result of jetBlue's entry, traffic to SFO and LAX has suffered, while traffic to LGB and OAK has soared. Overall, the market has increased.

Quoting B752OS (Reply 28): Also, I was talking about California as a whole and from just one airport, only BOS.

I realize that. Though I was just pointing the "jetBlue effect" on a certain route, BOS-LAX.

Quoting B752OS (Reply 28): An interesting thing is the large demand between BOS-SFO, it's pretty much the same size. If you remade the list for SFO, it would look like this

Indeed. Tech traffic.

[Edited 2007-04-13 04:54:39]

Quoting SANFan (Reply 20): I thought B6 was real tight on AirBi; anyone know where this plane came from? (It could almost be added op's on an existing a/c but it starts out of BOS kind of early in the evening for that...)

Looks like this new service will come at the expense of BOS-PHX, which is rumored to be discontinued June 11 (although still bookable on jetblue.com).

Quoting Isp (Reply 30): Looks like this new service will come at the expense of BOS-PHX, which is rumored to be discontinued June 11 (although still bookable on jetblue.com).

Isp, looks like you're right! I just checked the booking engine and after 6/10, the PHX-BOS n/s is gone now. Gives them a couple of weeks for some mx or charters or something before starting SAN at the end of the month. (The times of the two routes are very similar so no major scheduling challenges for B6 this time.)

It kind of makes sense if you look at it this way: in PHX, B6's 1 daily n/s was competing with 3 US n/s to BOS and 2 WN n/s to PVD; in SAN, their competition is 1 daily AA! (And lots of experts here on A.net seem to know that the AA will go away once B6 starts, so B6 may "know" that as well. Doesn't seem real bad to have all of those 619 SAN-BOS O&D pax to yourself!)

Of course maybe the PHX flight is just xld for the summer season and will return for winter but hopefully (and I'm confident) the SAN service will remain permanently, perhaps even go to 2x daily...

bb

By the way, further on your (and my) question JetBlueFan1:

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 12): On that note, does anyone know what B6's gate situation is at SAN? Last time I was there they were using 37 and 38, but now with three red-eyes, what's going to happen?

Using the schedules in the booking engine (and assuming they will not change significantly) there will in fact be 2 Blue-tails in SAN at the same time starting June 28 (from roughly 20:30 to 21:15) so the obvious guess is they will be using both 37 and 38. (Starting just today or perhaps a few days ago, they seem to have switched their single gate from 37 to 38 -- again!)

I'm thinking (and have felt for a while now) that B6 should get themselves firmly settled into 2 gates at Lindbergh in preparation for more flights including Florida and West Coast service once the E-190s migrate west, plus who-knows what other opportunities might arise? (I can certainly think of several!) Gate space at SAN continues to get more and more scarce as new airlines keep knocking on the door (and coming in) and at least some of the current inhabitants keep growing.

bb

Quoting Isp (Reply 30): Looks like this new service will come at the expense of BOS-PHX, which is rumored to be discontinued June 11 (although still bookable on jetblue.com).

Yep. BOS-PHX never really picked up; it's been slow since the beginning. $99 - even as a walk-up fare! - is definitely not profitable.

JetBluefan1

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 2): as for the AUA flights, i wonder if it'll go daily during peak travel times

B6 has already planned to go daily on this route during winter. AA serves this route seasonal during winter with 5 weekly flights. If B6 goes daily, I don't see AA coming back next year, may be this winter still. With B6 launching Saturday's service, it will be competing head to head with US that has Saturdays (A320) and Sundays (A319) service out of BOS.
It will interesting to see B6 development. B6 has been quite satisfied with its loads out of JFK, it will be interesting to see how AA and US will react on this.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 33): BOS-PHX

US Airways and America West have so many flight to PHX. Could that be the reason why this is not doing good from BOS!

I wish B6 would add more flights to LAS from Boston.....although USairways has many....they charge so much for it. When i flew them last i paid 650 for BOS-LAS....JetBlue simply did not have avaiability. !

Quoting SANFan (Reply 25): Or how about this scenario '747: AA sees B6 starting to ramp up its SAN service, thinks Florida might be next, and AA rushes in with its own pre-emptive strike of SAN-MIA (starting this summer!)

Why would anybody think JetBlue will fly SAN-Florida? If they couldn't make BUR-MCO work, and LGB-FLL has never increased from its one redeye frequency, what makes people think SAN-FLL or SAN-MCO is in the cards?

Personally, I think SAN-MIA on AA stands a better chance of working, solely based on AA's hub there. Not only do you get local traffic but the wealth of Caribbean and South American connections that AA offers. JetBlue has nothing to offer passengers at MCO or FLL other than the destinations themselves, and that is just not enough.

Quoting AUA747 (Reply 34): B6 has already planned to go daily on this route during winter. AA serves this route seasonal during winter with 5 weekly flights. If B6 goes daily, I don't see AA coming back next year, may be this winter still. With B6 launching Saturday's service, it will be competing head to head with US that has Saturdays (A320) and Sundays (A319) service out of BOS.

AA will stay on the route. International routes are less subject to the effect of jetBlue's lower fares, as they yield remains strong. Even jetBlue's fares on this route will probably not be low on a regular basis.

Quoting Richierich (Reply 36): Why would anybody think JetBlue will fly SAN-Florida? If they couldn't make BUR-MCO work, and LGB-FLL has never increased from its one redeye frequency, what makes people think SAN-FLL or SAN-MCO is in the cards?

I don't think that jetBlue will start San Diego-Florida, but that is nothing to base it on. FLL-LGB has been 2x daily, but LGB is also slot controlled, and there are only so many slots to go around. Both FLL-LGB and FLL-OAK are excellent performing routes for jetBlue, so there is no reason that FLL-SAN could not be.

FLL-LGB is 1x daily as a result of needing the slots elsewhere.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 33): Yep. BOS-PHX never really picked up; it's been slow since the beginning. $99 - even as a walk-up fare! - is definitely not profitable.

HP/US has a better situation than B6 for this route.

For PHX residents, B6 offers little. HP/US has nonstops to most B6 cities straight from PHX. Plus, FF miles on HPUS are much more useful to PHX residents than B6. Why would PHX residents fly B6 -- television -- but there are also reasons not to.

For JFK residents, the B6 PHX service is just local traffic. US carries connecting passengers bound for California or Hawaii. So naturally their flight will be stronger.

B6 offers better coach service but US-HP have a stronger network, which helps it compete.

Quoting InTheSky74 (Reply 38): FLL-LGB is 1x daily as a result of needing the slots elsewhere.

Wouldn't that mean the B6 would rather send flights to cities where they do better?

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 37): I don't think that jetBlue will start San Diego-Florida, but that is nothing to base it on. FLL-LGB has been 2x daily, but LGB is also slot controlled, and there are only so many slots to go around. Both FLL-LGB and FLL-OAK are excellent performing routes for jetBlue, so there is no reason that FLL-SAN could not be.

B6 used to fly FLL-LGB 2 x daily, does that mean they stopped one frequency to put it to another city where they would have done better? I am just curious why they don't do 2 dailies anymore. Perhaps they make more money out of FLL to JFK or IAD or BOS?

Quoting B752OS (Reply 40): B6 used to fly FLL-LGB 2 x daily, does that mean they stopped one frequency to put it to another city where they would have done better? I am just curious why they don't do 2 dailies anymore. Perhaps they make more money out of FLL to JFK or IAD or BOS?

Bingo. The second LGB-FLL was stopped with the LGB-ATL flights (or around the same time). Those two slots were used for the 2 LGB-BOS flights (during the winter, 3 during the summer), which are excellent performers.

JetBluefan1

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 41): Bingo. The second LGB-FLL was stopped with the LGB-ATL flights (or around the same time). Those two slots were used for the 2 LGB-BOS flights (during the winter, 3 during the summer), which are excellent performers

The ultimate question is that if LGB were not slot controlled, would the ATL flights have continued? I guess we will never know....

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 41): Bingo. The second LGB-FLL was stopped with the LGB-ATL flights (or around the same time). Those two slots were used for the 2 LGB-BOS flights (during the winter, 3 during the summer), which are excellent performers.

As excellent a performer as it may be, jetBlue's CASM on FLL-LGB is $0.083, slightly higher than BOS-LGB ($0.082). Both routes perform just as well as each other.

It has nothing to do with the route's performance, it has to do with the routes demographics and doing their best to distribute limited slots. jetBlue doesn't need to fly 2x FLL-LGB to do well on the route. One daily flight will suit the market just fine, especially because the business travelers are sticking to AA on FLL-LAX and MIA-LAX. Try one daily BOS-LGB, and you won't get any of the business travelers that jetBlue would want to be successful in a market that has a greater concentration of business traffic. If jetBlue had more slots at LGB and gatespace at FLL, there would be a second daily. FLL-LGB is top performing route for jetBlue.

[Edited 2007-04-13 21:35:14]

[Edited 2007-04-13 21:38:55]

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 43): If jetBlue had more slots at LGB and gatespace at FLL, there would be a second daily. FLL-LGB is top performing route for jetBlue.

Definitely. It's a dense market and JetBlue *could* make more if they added another flight, but since it's not geared toward business travelers, then it makes sense to have 2 flights to BOS rather than FLL.

Before you said that OAK-FLL is a good performer as well. However, from what I've seen, the route took awhile to pick up. Over the last few months yield and loads seem to have gotten better, but they're still lower than LGB. How big is the gap in performance between OAK-FLL and LGB-FLL?

JetBluefan1

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 43): It has nothing to do with the route's performance, it has to do with the routes demographics and doing their best to distribute limited slots. jetBlue doesn't need to fly 2x FLL-LGB to do well on the route. One daily flight will suit the market just fine, especially because the business travelers are sticking to AA on FLL-LAX and MIA-LAX. Try one daily BOS-LGB, and you won't get any of the business travelers that jetBlue would want to be successful in a market that has a greater concentration of business traffic. If jetBlue had more slots at LGB and gatespace at FLL, there would be a second daily. FLL-LGB is top performing route for jetBlue.

So what you are saying is that BOS-LGB sees more business traffic than FLL-LGB? Cutting capacity on BOS-LGB would only lead to those pax to fly BOS-LAX on either UA, AA or DL. I am just curious how you figure that more business pax fly on BOS-LGB than FLL-LGB. I would agree, as FLL is a much larger tourist destination than BOS is, the same could be said for MIA.

Quoting Richierich (Reply 42): The ultimate question is that if LGB were not slot controlled, would the ATL flights have continued? I guess we will never know....

I thought B6 gat slaughtered on their routes out of ATL by DL? And that was the reason they pulled out.

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 44): Definitely. It's a dense market and JetBlue *could* make more if they added another flight, but since it's not geared toward business travelers, then it makes sense to have 2 flights to BOS rather than FLL.

Or that there is roughly 3 times the daily pax on BOS-LGB than FLL-LGB. I think AA has the South Florida to Southern, CA market covered. What are they up to now on MIA-LAX? 7 daily flights? Which will cover the local demand, with the high tourist and cruise traffic between the 2 regions. I know I would rather fly on AA than on B6 to MIA.

Quoting B752OS (Reply 45): I know I would rather fly on AA than on B6 to MIA.

You would have to. B6 doesn't fly to MIA. AA doesn't fly to LGB. LGB-FLL and LAX-MIA are two different routes.

In any case, as far as SAN-BOS flights go, I'm trying to figure out if B6 will be able to get a lot of traffic from San Diego locals. B6 does have a loyal following in the LA area, but does that loyalty stretch all the way down to San Diego as well?

JetBluefan1

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 46): In any case, as far as SAN-BOS flights go, I'm trying to figure out if B6 will be able to get a lot of traffic from San Diego locals. B6 does have a loyal following in the LA area, but does that loyalty stretch all the way down to San Diego as well?

All I can say 'Blue is within 3 months of the SAN start-up (on 6/26/03) B6 had 3 flights on the JFK run! On 7/14, the start-up of the 2nd flight and the announcement of the 3rd flight (to begin 9/03/03), the P R included this statement:

Quote: "In just a few weeks, JFK to San Diego has proven to be one of JetBlue's fastest-growing new markets," said David Neeleman, CEO of JetBlue Airways.

The second route, SAN-IAD, started on May 3, 2005.
Although the start and stop dates have varied, we have always had the 3 Kennedy flights operate during the summers, losing 1 of them during the weakest winter months; IAD has remained daily and year-round now for its 2 years of operation. (JFK has apparently remained strong despite DL joining AA as the competition on the route. In fact one of the summers saw 3 AA, 3 B6 and 1DL n/s on the route and they all survived!)

In other words, I think San Diego is very happy to have JetBlue in town and supports them very well. In fact I knew many people in the 'burbs of San Diego who consistently drove up to LGB to catch B6 flights before the Lindbergh flights began. That probably continues to happen with FLL and BOS flights and perhaps other markets as well. And of course these pax show up as LGB traffic in the stat's.

This is one reason I keep "encouraging" B6 to try a flight to Florida from San Diego -- I guarantee that travelers will come out of the woodwork and fill the flight. There might even be a noticeable drop in LGB boardings. (In a sense, B6 could think of it as adding back that 2nd LGB-FLL flight, just operating out of SAN where a portion of the pax actually originate anyway...)

After 4 years of service at Lindbergh Field, it doesn't appear that Blue has many doubts about their success here. I see the addition of BOS as proof of that and I hope we see even more of B6 in the near future!

bb

225 and 226 are not going anywhere yet. The SJC pull down that included BOS was part of a larger re-deployment of the 757 fleet preceding the removal of the former TWA PW powered aircraft from the fleet. BOS-SAN has been a profitable route for years and the entry of B6 does not necessarily mean that the company will automatically turn tail in mortal fear. As MAH4546 correctly says, the flights will continue to fly with adequate to full loads. The reality is that B6 can force down yields which would get the attention of Fort Worth and therefore cause an evaluation. That is somewhere in the future. MIA-SAN is not in the cards just yet but has been talked about for some time. MIA-PHX is more likely. If or when 757 equipment is to be freed up within the system, it is likely to be deployed to MIA. The summer schedules are set in place, so anything dramatic would only occur later.

SAN, like other major east and west coast stations, have all had the change for DFW and ORD core trips to MD80s and, with SNA and SAN, 738s as opposed to 757s. This operating scheme will continue because the bottom line has been met. The MIA 757 and 738 plan has worked well because of the stage lengths and all the flying to the south. Anyway, for now, 757-767 crews still have BOS-SAN in their books, so everyone catch a collective breath.

The popular B6 ("LCCs are cool. legacies are dumb, etc."), as someone else noted, is still correctly sorting everything out from the February (and March) lessons. I was very lucky myself to hit a brief window of opportunity on February 14 to get properly de-iced after three tries and get out of Dodge along with a completely full load of nervous customers who patiently waited for four hours and just before Fort Worth was going to pull the plug. So while I do sympathize with B6 to a point (and like the TV monitors on the seatbacks), the 757 silver birds with the old seats aren't fleeing just yet, only if better yields beckon with MIA. The 757s may not be as cool but they are kind of, um, reliable.

[Edited 2007-04-14 04:06:59]

[Edited 2007-04-14 04:09:03]

Quoting B752OS (Reply 45): So what you are saying is that BOS-LGB sees more business traffic than FLL-LGB?

Yes.

Quoting B752OS (Reply 45): I would agree, as FLL is a much larger tourist destination than BOS is, the same could be said for MIA.

Wrong on the second account. You do realize that MIA-LAX brings is a higher yielding route for airlines than BOS-LAX, right? The average MIA-LAX fare is about $10 higher, combined with the fact that the route is nearly 300 miles shorter, airlines' CASM on BOS-LAX is $0.112, compared to $0.129 on MIA-LAX. The majority of leisure traffic between Miami-Los Angeles goes to FLL. MIA-LAX is a very high fare market, with the average round-trip over $600, higher than any other trans-con market to Los Angeles outside of NYC and WAS.

Quoting B752OS (Reply 45): I thought B6 gat slaughtered on their routes out of ATL by DL? And that was the reason they pulled out.

They did.

Quoting B752OS (Reply 45): Or that there is roughly 3 times the daily pax on BOS-LGB than FLL-LGB.

No. The demand on BOS-LGB is artificially created by the fact that jetBlue flies the route. The demand on FLL-LGB is also artificially created because jetBlue flies the route. WIthout jetBlue on the route, there would be maybe a dozen daily passengers on each city pair. Since jetBlue flies BOS-LGB 3x daily and FLL-LGB only 1x daily, BOS-LGB has roughly three times the daily pax. However, if jetBlue were to fly FLL-LGB, which they would easily fill, then the markets would have the same amount of traffic.

Quoting B752OS (Reply 45): What are they up to now on MIA-LAX? 7 daily flights?

Seven daily flights, and an eighth daily is looking likely for December.

[Edited 2007-04-14 04:27:14]