The title is pretty self explanitory. I know part of it was the decline the IE faced when the economy bottomed out, but service levels are at a low not seen in over two decades. In 2013, ONT did not even get four million passengers which I found pretty crazy.

Currently ONT is left with year round mainline service to the following destinations:

Southwest - MDW, DEN, LAS, OAK, PHX, SMF, and SJC.
American - DFW
Alaska - SEA
Delta - SLC
US Airways - PHX
Volaris - GDL
AeroMexico - GDL

United got rid of all mainline flights to ONT. All flights to SFO, DEN, and IAH are opperated on RJs. It also appears as though Delta has pulled the seasonal ATL-ONT flight from GDS.

Granted I havent lived in the Los Angeles area in about 5 years now, but I used to like using ONT even if I had to make the drive because it was so much eaiser than LAX. I was my number two after SNA since I was left from work in Garden Grove many times.

Weve seen other airports bounce back since the depression, yet ONT keep declining. What would it take to get ONT back on its feet?

I dont know why its declining so fast, but it suprises me that AA still flies mainline and UA does not. AA is usually the stingiest with thier mainline equipment

While ONT is losing pax, it has maintained a massive Cargo operation. Is there any chance of this growing larger?

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter): Southwest - MDW, DEN, LAS, OAK, PHX, SMF, and SJC. American - DFW Alaska - SEA Delta - SLC US Airways - PHX Volaris - GDL AeroMexico - GDL

This has to be one the highest % out of toal ops for almsot any airport!

I think part of the problem is now that you see JetBlue and Virgin America starting to go after the premium traveler, the big guys (AA, DL and UA) have had to put their focus at LAX to defend and maintain that. It's sad, but they only seem to go where the money is.

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 1): I dont know why its declining so fast, but it suprises me that AA still flies mainline and UA does not.

It seems AA has historically long been a very strong competitor at ONT - through ups and downs in the macro economy and AA's own finances, those multiple daily MD80s to DFW have remained relatively steady for a very, very long time. As a personal anecdote, I myself know several ONT-based flyers that live in Temecula, etc. who travel frequently back and forth to IAD, EWR, occasionally DFW, etc. and they only fly AA and have been AAdvantage members for decades.

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 1): AA is usually the stingiest with thier mainline equipment

I do not agree with that assessment. On the contrary, there are lots and lots of markets throughout the U.S. where AA retains a not-insignificant amount of mainline capacity and where competitors - especially United - have far less, if any.

Quoting mikesairways (Reply 2): the big guys (AA, DL and UA) have had to put their focus at LAX to defend and maintain that. It's sad, but they only seem to go where the money is.

I agree that AA, Delta and United have all become relatively more concentrated (i.e., % of total LA basin capacity) at LAX in recent years as they "go where the money is," but I think that has less to do with fighting the growing presence of low-cost carriers (like JetBlue or Virgin) at LAX and more to do with the inescapable reality, validated again and again by market experience, that premium traffic demand in Southern California is concentrated at LAX - for better or worse.

Quoting commavia (Reply 3): I agree that AA, Delta and United have all become relatively more concentrated (i.e., % of total LA basin capacity) at LAX in recent years as they "go where the money is," but I think that has less to do with fighting the growing presence of low-cost carriers (like JetBlue or Virgin) at LAX and more to do with the inescapable reality, validated again and again by market experience, that premium traffic demand in Southern California is concentrated at LAX - for better or worse.

And to be honest the same can be said up SJC land as well - SFO will probably always have the nicer planes, premium routes and more destinations than us. As much as I want our little SJC to have the likes of BA, LH, etc here, we sadly will be always be in the shadows of SFO. I'm grateful we have ANA here at least - and from what I hear it's still going strong.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter): Weve seen other airports bounce back since the depression, yet ONT keep declining. What would it take to get ONT back on its feet?

Quoting mikesairways (Reply 2): I think part of the problem is now that you see JetBlue and Virgin America starting to go after the premium traveler, the big guys (AA, DL and UA) have had to put their focus at LAX to defend and maintain that. It's sad, but they only seem to go where the money is.

  

Many secondary airports seem to have lost their flavor for many airlines. Even G4's focus lately has been elsewhere with build ups in CVG, MSY, IND and PIT.

I think what keeps new entrants from considering ONT is the expense. IIRC, ONT is pricey for the airlines to operate out of.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter): Weve seen other airports bounce back since the depression, yet ONT keep declining.

How about decline of BUR, or decline at LGB? Or loss of airline services at one secondary airport after another in the U.S.?

Until recently when SNA traffic picked up, every LA basin airport sans LAX were experiencing declines.

Quoting Legend757 (Reply 5): I think what keeps new entrants from considering ONT is the expense. IIRC, ONT is pricey for the airlines to operate out of.

Its cheaper than LAX.

Quoting Legend757 (Reply 5): I think what keeps new entrants from considering ONT is the expense. IIRC, ONT is pricey for the airlines to operate out of.

Its pricey for passenger airlines due to the terminals that are far overbuilt.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6): Quoting Legend757 (Reply 5): I think what keeps new entrants from considering ONT is the expense. IIRC, ONT is pricey for the airlines to operate out of. Its cheaper than LAX.

It may be cheaper in terms of overhead, but the yields make a big difference.

From what I have seen, the loads to PHX are usually pretty good on US, usually about 60-90 bags inbound and about 50-75 outbound on a CR9. Mainline I would imagine still sees the value in it since only 2 frequencies are CR9s and only on certain days.

It suffers from being in the Inland Empire and the fact that the area is still relatively poor. Also, there are quite a few transplants to the IE that are from Mexico and as such travel to LAX for everywhere in Mexico and Central America other than GDL.

Quoting alasizon (Reply 7): It may be cheaper in terms of overhead, but the yields make a big difference.

And you have just answered the question as to why service has declined at ONT -- yields are generally poor. That has been a problem since the Inland Empire economy basically imploded in the wake of the 2008 real estate collapse.

Quoting alasizon (Reply 7): Its pricey for passenger airlines due to the terminals that are far overbuilt.

The terminals weren't overbuilt at the time they were constructed. Unfortunately, it's not possible to just unbuild the terminals and get the money back.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6): How about decline of BUR, or decline at LGB? Or loss of airline services at one secondary airport after another in the U.S.? Until recently when SNA traffic picked up, every LA basin airport sans LAX were experiencing declines.

  

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 1): I dont know why its declining so fast, but it suprises me that AA still flies mainline and UA does not. AA is usually the stingiest with thier mainline equipment

AA doesn't really have any hubs (well, didn't before the merger with US) which are close enough to serve economically with RJ's. DFW-ONT is a long, long way for an ERJ and that's a very high-cost aircraft for a yield-challenged market. Sure, they also had CR7's but they also had a lot of markets to cover with a small fleet and DFW-ONT would take up at least half a day for each round-trip. And it's dumb to fly people from ONT to LAX on RJ's, before anyone brings up the LAX hub.

Quoting commavia (Reply 3): I think that has less to do with fighting the growing presence of low-cost carriers (like JetBlue or Virgin) at LAX and more to do with the inescapable reality, validated again and again by market experience, that premium traffic demand in Southern California is concentrated at LAX - for better or worse.

I think that's part of it -- but it's also the case that passengers will make trade-offs between price, schedule, and convenience. LAX basically beats every airport in the region for schedule and is virtually always price-competitive, so many will sacrifice convenience and drive to LAX for more frequent service or non-stops at a comparable price.

Something like 1x daily ATL-ONT is going to struggle if there are a dozen or more ATL-LAX flights -- unless the ATL-ONT flight is just far cheaper. But then why steal the traffic from yourself at a lower yield?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6): How about decline of BUR, or decline at LGB? Or loss of airline services at one secondary airport after another in the U.S.?

Im well aware ONT isnt the only secondary airport that has had difficulties. Many others seem to have rebounded while ONT has continued to decline. Not only is it declining, its peer airports (in terms of passenger count) would be something along the lines of OKC and BHM. That is something that takes me by surprise. Not only has ONT never recovered from the economic downtown, its continuing to decline.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 8): AA doesn't really have any hubs (well, didn't before the merger with US) which are close enough to serve economically with RJ's. DFW-ONT is a long, long way for an ERJ and that's a very high-cost aircraft for a yield-challenged market. Sure, they also had CR7's but they also had a lot of markets to cover with a small fleet and DFW-ONT would take up at least half a day for each round-trip. And it's dumb to fly people from ONT to LAX on RJ's, before anyone brings up the LAX hub.

What is different about DFW-ONT vs. IAH/ATL-ONT is market size. Its well over twice the size of both and its a shorter distance. I dont think ONT is killing the yields to any destination, but I think that will keep DFW-ONT afloat.

Since i didn't know much about Ontario International Airport i went searching. Looks like there is a law suit over control of the airport. Then we have a so called "Judge" saying the law suit is "‘long, complicated’. It is not complicated. Give the airport back to the City of Ontario. Seems like people have a stake in LAX and would love to shut down Ontario Airport. (Force everyone to use LAX)

Just like airlines, airports do not like competition. People will travel to other cities / places to fly out for cheaper airfares. If the City of Ontario can regain the airport then i expect costs would come down and fares will be lower so more people will fly out of Ontario.

It will be interesting to find out about this so called "Judge's" ruling. (Just like Politicians - "Judges" are corrupt as well)

ONT-DFW is not that long for an ERJ...look at all the RJs flying from the LA basin to Texas by AA and DL

Quoting ericm2031 (Reply 11): ONT-DFW is not that long for an ERJ...look at all the RJs flying from the LA basin to Texas by AA and DL

AA doesnt fly any RJs to Southern California from Texas. Not a single one.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 9): Im well aware ONT isnt the only secondary airport that has had difficulties. Many others seem to have rebounded while ONT has continued to decline. Not only is it declining, its peer airports (in terms of passenger count) would be something along the lines of OKC and BHM. That is something that takes me by surprise. Not only has ONT never recovered from the economic downtown, its continuing to decline.

BUR continues its decline as well...

Pax totals.

2007 - 5,921,336
2008 - 5,331,404
2009 - 4,588,433
2010 - 4,461,271
2011 - 4,301,568
2012 - 4,056,416
2013 - 3,844,092
2014 - 3.7 mil per media report

Thats a 40% decline, almost identical to ONT 44% during similar time frame.

ONT just gets undue attention due to bunch of loud local politicos. But the industry changes are far beyond unique to ONT.

Quoting DC10LOVER (Reply 10): Give the airport back to the City of Ontario. Seems like people have a stake in LAX and would love to shut down Ontario Airport. (Force everyone to use LAX)

LA City has said it would sell the airport back for the right price - one that allows it recoup its multi-decade investments into the airport.
Remember LA City did not end up with ONT due to any shenanigans. The City of Ontario was broke and walked away from it 1960s. FAA brokered a deal where LA City would assume operations and later ownership of the airport in return for major upgrades (new runways, terminal etc).

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 12): Quoting ericm2031 (Reply 11): ONT-DFW is not that long for an ERJ...look at all the RJs flying from the LA basin to Texas by AA and DL AA doesnt fly any RJs to Southern California from Texas. Not a single one.

LAX-ELP/IAH/SAT and, starting in May, a 5th daily LAX-AUS frequency will be an RJ on top of the four mainline flights.

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 14): LAX-ELP/IAH/SAT and, starting in May, a 5th daily LAX-AUS frequency will be an RJ on top of the four mainline flights.

Youre right. I was thinking DFW not Texas in my head. Sorry about that.

Quoting DC10LOVER (Reply 10): It is not complicated. Give the airport back to the City of Ontario. Seems like people have a stake in LAX and would love to shut down Ontario Airport. (Force everyone to use LAX)

The issue isn't that LAWA wants to keep ONT until the day before forever. It's that they can't get a reasonable offer from the Ontario or the IE cities.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter): part of it was the decline the IE faced when the economy bottomed out

Part of it was the airport's high costs. Part of it was the U.S. airline industry's renewed focus on primary airports. ONT's primary tenant WN changed its entire network strategy from catering strictly to VFR and leisure travelers at secondary airports and medium-sized markets to serving business travelers at primary airports and virtually all of the nation's largest markets. WN aggressively expanded at the likes of BOS, BWI, DAL, DCA, DEN, HOU, LAX, LGA, MDW, MSP, SFO, etc. - largely at the expense of its alternate and smaller market stations like ABQ, BHM, BUR, ELP, ISP, MHT, ONT, ORF, PVD, SLC, etc.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter): service levels are at a low not seen in over two decades. In 2013, ONT did not even get four million passengers which I found pretty crazy.

I would think ONT's worst days are behind them. The Inland Empire is currently the fastest-growing region in all of Southern California, and strong growth is forecast for the coming years. The economic growth is a lot more broad-based than it was in the past and includes notable gains of higher paying jobs. This should ultimately translate into increased demand for air service, though it may be worth noting that demographic challenges remain: local unemployment is higher than the state average and local wages are considerably lower than the California average.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...empire-economy-20141023-story.html

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter): Southwest - MDW, DEN, LAS, OAK, PHX, SMF, and SJC

Looks like those seasonal nonstop ONT-RNO flights didn't pan out, but maybe they could try ONT-SJD flights (with feed from NorCal and LAS, it might just work). Given UA's drastic reduction in capacity on the ONT-IAH route, maybe WN could add ONT-HOU service. However, with WN making an 8 figure investment in the renovation of LAX Terminal 1, growth at ONT (or BUR) is probably an afterthought.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter): United got rid of all mainline flights to ONT. All flights to SFO, DEN, and IAH are opperated on RJs.

This is UA we are talking about. I for one would be shocked if they still offered mainline service at ONT  !

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter): It also appears as though Delta has pulled the seasonal ATL-ONT flight from GDS.

Wasn't the "seasonal" ATL-ONT just a few flights around the Christmas/New Year holidays? If that service did well maybe they can convince DL to restore service throughout the busy summer travel period.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter): I used to like using ONT even if I had to make the drive because it was so much eaiser than LAX.

People love the convenience of the alternate airports, but the all-important business travelers prefer LAX (better schedules, larger aircraft, lounges, nonstop flights, etc.). Even BUR - within spitting distance of the studios and Hollywood Hills - struggles to attract the higher yielding types, while ONT is so far from most of the LA tourist attractions, businesses, and wealthy residents that it isn't even considered.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter): Weve seen other airports bounce back since the depression, yet ONT keep declining.

A lot of the secondary metropolitan airports are still struggling. In California alone you have BUR, LGB, OAK, and SJC in addition to ONT. The airlines - legacies, LCCs, and now even the ULCCs - are all focused on primary airports/markets. As LAX gains more competition (lower fares), nonstop flights and improved amenities, ONT becomes less attractive. PSP has gained LCC service, so folks in the Coachella Valley are less likely to use ONT as well.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter): What would it take to get ONT back on its feet?

ONT is back on its feet. AFAIK the cuts have stopped, Y4 started service, and DL has shown a willingness to resume ATL-ONT (however briefly). If the local economy continues to improve as expected, maybe we could see new attempts at routes like ATL, HNL, JFK, ORD, SJD, etc. in the coming years.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 17): People love the convenience of the alternate airports, but the all-important business travelers prefer LAX (better schedules, larger aircraft, lounges, nonstop flights, etc.). Even BUR - within spitting distance of the studios and Hollywood Hills - struggles to attract the higher yielding types, while ONT is so far from most of the LA tourist attractions, businesses, and wealthy residents that it isn't even considered.

It depends on the type of traffic too.

I lived in LA for most of my adult life and even though LAX was far closer, I would go out to ONT to fly on many occasions. I could get off the plane, get my bag, and be out of the airport in 15 minutes. LAX offers a lot more options, but any time my final destination was just DFW or IAH, I would always use ONT or SNA. If I was flying internationally I would use LAX. But that is from a resident perspective.

LA also gets a ton of tourists. For them, I cannot see ONT being an option at all. Its very far from anything a tourist would want to see in Southern California.

Part of me feels like B6 will be returning sooner rather than later.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter): Alaska - SEA

Alaska also servies ONTPDX

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 20): Alaska also servies ONTPDX

With 2 daily SkyWest CR7s

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter): Currently ONT is left with year round mainline service to the following destinations:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 8): The terminals weren't overbuilt at the time they were constructed. Unfortunately, it's not possible to just unbuild the terminals and get the money back.

Any spare room available at any of ONT main 2 terminals to move Port-of-Entry over-there and close the international arrivals terminal?

As for international flights ONT only has GDL flights, how come no MEX or GUA or SAL service? Demographics are there to support those routes.

My family and I flew ONT-PHX last spring. We live only about 20-30 minutes away from ONT, and my father prefers to fly out of ONT when possible when traveling for business or otherwise because "it's an easy airport." However, all of us were astounded at how empty the airport was. After we landed back home from PHX on one of the last flights of the day, the airport was almost a ghost town.

Five years ago I flew ONT-IAH-LHR. Back then CO had 737s flying to and from ONT, compared to the RJs UA uses now. It was a great alternative to LAX because everything was smaller scale, and I paid ~$1200 USD for the flight bought only a few weeks before (this was 2010).

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 22): Any spare room available at any of ONT main 2 terminals to move Port-of-Entry over-there and close the international arrivals terminal?

Room yes suppose so, but someone would have to fund the millions for build out a FIS facility.

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 22): how come no MEX or GUA or SAL service? Demographics are there to support those routes.

TACA looked at ONT about 2-3 years ago but opted against it.