In a revision to a 2003 consent decree between Long Beach and Jetblue, the city prosecutor office announced this week that JetBlue officials had agreed to pay $6,000 fine all administrative noise ordinance violations.
At one time these fines were negligible ($100-300) but were raised to $3,000 in 2003. Previously under noise ordinance, carriers first 6 monthly fines were $3,000 with subsequent violations priced at $6,000. Now all violations will be $6,000.

Curfew violations have risen from 89 in 2015, 134 in 2016 and so far 133 in first 6-months of 2017 and have garnered increased resident angst.

Long Beach Airport Officials To Amend Noise Ordinance, Stop Curfew Violations
http://www.gazettes.com/news/long-beach ... b8cfa.html

Long Beach raises JetBlue’s fine for late-night flight violations
http://www.presstelegram.com/business/2 ... violations

=

Tsk tsk on JetBlue. Certainly not endearing itself to the community as it flaunts the airport's curfew with a massive rise in violations.

At the end of the day it's cheaper to pay they fine then cancelling the flights.

It sounds like the violations are mostly on flights coming from the East Coast, more than likely a JFK flight running behind because of weather and ATC delays, if that's the case then the violation should be wavied, there's not much that the airline can do outside of cancelling the flight.

A $6000 fine per flight is the equivalent of dozens of average fares per flight even from JFK. If the flight is from other cities, the percentage of the flight's revenue going to fines is much higher

The alternative is to operate the flights on time - retime the departures and make the priority at all cost - and then divert them to another airport and bus the passengers if necessary.

B6 can't be making money at LGB with fines that high but they have no place else in the LA area to move their flights.

At least the Long Beach City library is getting some extra revenue

roadpilot wrote:

At the end of the day it's cheaper to pay they fine then cancelling the flights.

It sounds like the violations are mostly on flights coming from the East Coast, more than likely a JFK flight running behind because of weather and ATC delays, if that's the case then the violation should be wavied, there's not much that the airline can do outside of cancelling the flight.

Should be waived, but the city of LGB has a vendetta against B6 for some odd reason.

LGB loses money, this will just exacerbate that fact.

Hopefully this will just push JetBlue into the arms of Ontario, and the residence of LGB can bask in the glory of higher fares and multiple connections to get out east on Southwest.

The JetBlue operation at LGB just cannot get away with what it gets away with at other airports out east. California specific labor laws protect the employees at LGB (to the chagrin of B6 management and "efficiency") and the airport specifically limits what they can do with their planes. I.E. they cannot run a 24/7 hot operation in Longbeach, pushing crews and planes to max utilization.

B6 should pull out of LGB and reinforce LAX and BUR to capacity. The City of Long Beach is business prohibitive and the airport should be razed. Having a community of fanatical NIMBY's surrounding an airport that has been there before well before most of these people and their parents, it's amazing how the city panders to them. It's no wonder the city is a dump. Downtown is completely run down and full of Hobos. Long Beach has so much potential for high tourism but they prefer to cater to the local lynch mob and paid off local politicians and install a ridiculous cap on flights and a stiff curfew.

nine4nine wrote:

B6 should pull out of LGB and reinforce LAX and BUR to capacity. The City of Long Beach is business prohibitive and the airport should be razed. Having a community of fanatical NIMBY's surrounding an airport that has been there before well before most of these people and their parents, it's amazing how the city panders to them. It's no wonder the city is a dump. Downtown is completely run down and full of Hobos. Long Beach has so much potential for high tourism but they prefer to cater to the local lynch mob and paid off local politicians and install a ridiculous cap on flights and a stiff curfew.

It's a simmering problem at DCA too. The entitled lobbyists/contractors surrounding the airport whine and complain about the noise, yet chose to live near an airport that's been there for decades.

I still say the best solution to the problem is to fly MD88s overhead every 30 min.

nine4nine wrote:

B6 should pull out of LGB and reinforce LAX and BUR to capacity. The City of Long Beach is business prohibitive and the airport should be razed. Having a community of fanatical NIMBY's surrounding an airport that has been there before well before most of these people and their parents, it's amazing how the city panders to them. It's no wonder the city is a dump. Downtown is completely run down and full of Hobos. Long Beach has so much potential for high tourism but they prefer to cater to the local lynch mob and paid off local politicians and install a ridiculous cap on flights and a stiff curfew.

Nooooo!!!!

I love B6 out if LGB. B6 should expand out of LAX. These fines probably will result in one or two retired flights and one or two cancelled... Sigh...

Lightsaber

Its an airlines responsibility to comply with airport regulations or face the punishment. Its not like these regulations are new at Long Beach.

No one is forcing JetBlue to schedule flights within minutes of the curfew. It seems to me this is all their own doing, and looks they willingly ignore the rules.

The violations and the large recent spike is certainly all JetBlue's own doing.

Just looking at the schedule today, B6 has 5 flights timed within 30 mins of the curfew. Invariably something likely goes wrong near daily as result.

Doesn't matter if B6 has 20 flights within 30 min of the curfew, they are certainly within their rights to schedule and fly those planes. The true indicator and judge/jury of those flights is the traveling public and if they do not like it they can chose to not purchase tickets for them and the flights will go away. LGB runs an airport and that function is to allow airlines and their planes to land and take off at the airport; it brings both good and economic value to the community for this to occur. Now, if politics comes into play and certain members of the governing body want to inhibit one carrier for the interest of another low-cost one, that is a position that must be addressed by the citizenry of Long Beach. In the matter of fines for late arrivals, as long as it is equally applied to ALL carriers, then it is not an issue. But then if they are 'negotiated' like FAA fines and no one pays the 'press amount,' well then that is another topic.

atl100million wrote:

B6 can't be making money at LGB with fines that high but they have no place else in the LA area to move their flights.

ONT has plenty of space...and no NIMBY BS!

Like some of the people have said, this is a Jet Blue issue. They have had similar rules down the 405 at SNA for my lifetime almost. It is not a surprise.

LAXintl wrote:

The violations and the large recent spike is certainly all JetBlue's own doing.

Just looking at the schedule today, B6 has 5 flights timed within 30 mins of the curfew. Invariably something likely goes wrong near daily as result.

Good points. I guess even if WN schedules a late flight, it won't be coming in from the East Coast and therefore theoretically less subject to delays.

I wonder if the incoming NEOs will provide a significant noise reduction.

One would imagine JetBlue would do all it can to earn good reputation and win the hearts and minds of citizens and politicians at LGB since they desire to allow international flights and maybe also gain additional slots one day, but instead, now they bring more negative attention to themselves with such large increase in curfew violations. Not very good PR.

LGB has shown absolutely nothing that suggests Jetblue should "do all it can" for them. Its like they don't want more flights at the airport.

mercure1 wrote:

One would imagine JetBlue would do all it can to earn good reputation and win the hearts and minds of citizens and politicians at LGB since they desire to allow international flights and maybe also gain additional slots one day, but instead, now they bring more negative attention to themselves with such large increase in curfew violations. Not very good PR.

What the heck are you talking about?

Lgb gave them the great fu already. That issue is dead and JetBlue would be stupid to think otherwise. They are probably taking huge losses in the efforts to use the slots so those don't go to southwest.

Do you think b6 enjoys selling 20 dollar flights to Las Vegas? They have no need for additional slots there when they can't make money with the slots they have now.

They need to start cutting back on some of these money loosing flights there and reallocate those aircraft to places that need them like Boston and New York.

mercure1 wrote:

One would imagine JetBlue would do all it can to earn good reputation and win the hearts and minds of citizens and politicians at LGB since they desire to allow international flights and maybe also gain additional slots one day, but instead, now they bring more negative attention to themselves with such large increase in curfew violations. Not very good PR.

JetBlue paid for most of their new terminal and renovations and has provided the lions share of service (including transcons) to LGB for years, and at a LOSS to the company.

Airport repaid b6 by them denying JetBlue FIS/international flights last year, which JetBlue was going to pay out of pocket for too. Oh, and gave SWA slots so that everyone involved can lose even more money on lower yields.

Time to pull that plug. Squat on the slots with short e190 turns and wait for the city council to come around.

roadpilot wrote:

At the end of the day it's cheaper to pay they fine then cancelling the flights.

It sounds like the violations are mostly on flights coming from the East Coast, more than likely a JFK flight running behind because of weather and ATC delays, if that's the case then the violation should be wavied, there's not much that the airline can do outside of cancelling the flight.

I believe that most frequently it is the 935pm BOS departure that violates the curfew

727200 wrote:

Doesn't matter if B6 has 20 flights within 30 min of the curfew, they are certainly within their rights to schedule and fly those planes.

Of course it matters that they schedule five flights within 30 minutes of the curfew, particularly when two of those flights are arrivals from JFK & BOS! B6 1013, the evening flight from JFK to LGB, is scheduled to arrive at 2135 but is delayed by 30 minutes or more (which would put the arrival after the curfew) 33% of the time. B6 405, scheduled to arrive LGB at 2131, arrives 30 minutes or more late 50% of the time! If they schedule flights from chronically-delayed airports like JFK & BOS with an arrival time fairly close to the curfew, that is just plain poor planning. The curfew existed before B6 started service to LGB -- heck, it's been around longer than B6 period.

727200 wrote:

LGB runs an airport and that function is to allow airlines and their planes to land and take off at the airport; it brings both good and economic value to the community for this to occur. Now, if politics comes into play and certain members of the governing body want to inhibit one carrier for the interest of another low-cost one, that is a position that must be addressed by the citizenry of Long Beach.

It has nothing to do with inhibiting one carrier in the interest of another one! The citizenry of Long Beach have vocally expressed their preference to not experience aircraft noise after 10 PM. A fine is pretty much the only workable means of penalizing a corporate entity.

CobaltScar wrote:

Hopefully this will just push JetBlue into the arms of Ontario

This isn't going to push B6 into the arms of ONT simply because that's not where B6's target market (i.e. customers of a premium low-fare carrier) wants to travel to or from. They could bulk up service at ONT tomorrow but they'd lose their shirts doing it!

flyby519 wrote:

the city of LGB has a vendetta against B6 for some odd reason.

What exactly is the supposed vendetta? Through the end of May, JetBlue was responsible for 85% of the 322 violations of the night curfew by commercial aircraft in 2017. They're also responsible for 94 of the 101 noise violations year-to-date. The number of violations compared to 2016 doubled year-over-year and are on pace to triple 2015's figure.

LAXintl wrote:

Tsk tsk on JetBlue. Certainly not endearing itself to the community as it flaunts the airport's curfew with a massive rise in violations.

What should be potentially more concerning to B6, if they intend to continue squatting on slots at LGB, is the proposal to strip carriers of slots for 20 more more violations in a 24-month period; B6 hits that number within a month or two.

roadpilot wrote:

It sounds like the violations are mostly on flights coming from the East Coast, more than likely a JFK flight running behind because of weather and ATC delays, if that's the case then the violation should be wavied, there's not much that the airline can do outside of cancelling the flight.

There's quite a bit they can do. They can re-time the flights to depart JFK/BOS earlier; they can shuffle aircraft scheduled for a trip in the case of late inbound flights or maintenance issues; they can schedule JFK/BOS-LGB as the beginning of a trip for crews. Those all might potentially increase costs and perhaps even make the flights uneconomic but they do have options to ameliorate the problem.

atl100million wrote:

The alternative is to operate the flights on time - retime the departures and make the priority at all cost - and then divert them to another airport and bus the passengers if necessary.

That's exactly true and what airlines operating to SNA manage to do...

mercure1 wrote:

Its an airlines responsibility to comply with airport regulations or face the punishment. Its not like these regulations are new at Long Beach.

No one is forcing JetBlue to schedule flights within minutes of the curfew. It seems to me this is all their own doing, and looks they willingly ignore the rules.

Carriers get an hour grace period before they're fined.

727200 wrote:

Doesn't matter if B6 has 20 flights within 30 min of the curfew, they are certainly within their rights to schedule and fly those planes. The true indicator and judge/jury of those flights is the traveling public and if they do not like it they can chose to not purchase tickets for them and the flights will go away. LGB runs an airport and that function is to allow airlines and their planes to land and take off at the airport; it brings both good and economic value to the community for this to occur.

Nope. U.S. airports are public assets, generally constructed as public investments and operated for the benefit of the public, not expressly for the benefit of profit-making corps.

ScottB wrote:

727200 wrote:

Doesn't matter if B6 has 20 flights within 30 min of the curfew, they are certainly within their rights to schedule and fly those planes.

Of course it matters that they schedule five flights within 30 minutes of the curfew, particularly when two of those flights are arrivals from JFK & BOS! B6 1013, the evening flight from JFK to LGB, is scheduled to arrive at 2135 but is delayed by 30 minutes or more (which would put the arrival after the curfew) 33% of the time. B6 405, scheduled to arrive LGB at 2131, arrives 30 minutes or more late 50% of the time! If they schedule flights from chronically-delayed airports like JFK & BOS with an arrival time fairly close to the curfew, that is just plain poor planning. The curfew existed before B6 started service to LGB -- heck, it's been around longer than B6 period.

727200 wrote:

LGB runs an airport and that function is to allow airlines and their planes to land and take off at the airport; it brings both good and economic value to the community for this to occur. Now, if politics comes into play and certain members of the governing body want to inhibit one carrier for the interest of another low-cost one, that is a position that must be addressed by the citizenry of Long Beach.

It has nothing to do with inhibiting one carrier in the interest of another one! The citizenry of Long Beach have vocally expressed their preference to not experience aircraft noise after 10 PM. A fine is pretty much the only workable means of penalizing a corporate entity.

CobaltScar wrote:

Hopefully this will just push JetBlue into the arms of Ontario

This isn't going to push B6 into the arms of ONT simply because that's not where B6's target market (i.e. customers of a premium low-fare carrier) wants to travel to or from. They could bulk up service at ONT tomorrow but they'd lose their shirts doing it!

flyby519 wrote:

the city of LGB has a vendetta against B6 for some odd reason.

What exactly is the supposed vendetta? Through the end of May, JetBlue was responsible for 85% of the 322 violations of the night curfew by commercial aircraft in 2017. They're also responsible for 94 of the 101 noise violations year-to-date. The number of violations compared to 2016 doubled year-over-year and are on pace to triple 2015's figure.

LAXintl wrote:

Tsk tsk on JetBlue. Certainly not endearing itself to the community as it flaunts the airport's curfew with a massive rise in violations.

What should be potentially more concerning to B6, if they intend to continue squatting on slots at LGB, is the proposal to strip carriers of slots for 20 more more violations in a 24-month period; B6 hits that number within a month or two.

roadpilot wrote:

It sounds like the violations are mostly on flights coming from the East Coast, more than likely a JFK flight running behind because of weather and ATC delays, if that's the case then the violation should be wavied, there's not much that the airline can do outside of cancelling the flight.

There's quite a bit they can do. They can re-time the flights to depart JFK/BOS earlier; they can shuffle aircraft scheduled for a trip in the case of late inbound flights or maintenance issues; they can schedule JFK/BOS-LGB as the beginning of a trip for crews. Those all might potentially increase costs and perhaps even make the flights uneconomic but they do have options to ameliorate the problem.

atl100million wrote:

The alternative is to operate the flights on time - retime the departures and make the priority at all cost - and then divert them to another airport and bus the passengers if necessary.

That's exactly true and what airlines operating to SNA manage to do...

Jetblue is loosing money selling all these sub 50 tickets to las and Bay Area. And southwest pr senc is driving yield even lower. Those JFK and bos transcon flights are really low yielding too. What is so precious about these lgb flyers that makes b6 so concerned about ticking them off and loosing slots.

Time to cut flights and let southwest fly their intra California routes. Lgb clearly has no appreciation for all those transcon flights that JetBlue provides. This is a marriage that's not working.

Don't know why B6 continues to do business at LGB, the city and it's awful residents have a personal vendetta against them and apparently forgot that the airport was there long before they were. B6 should just say "screw you" to LGB and pack up to ONT.

This vendetta notion is nonsense.

LGB simply wants B6 to follow the established rules. As far as Intl flights and FIS, the city has zero obligation to commit to such and has opted to retain the status quo. And as far as SWA slots, they were awarded per long established new entrant rules when slots become available. SWA later gained access to additional slots which B6 was not making use of, again not the airports fault, but B6 for failing to utilize them appropriately.

As far as B6 making money or not LGB, that a commercial decision they need to make and determine what larger strategic value the operation has or not for them.
If B6 were to leave LGB, very likely others would happily back fill the slots request demand has continued to exceed those available.

The DOT database shows that B6 and WN had about the same on-time percentage at LGB – 80% for most months and OO operating for DL was significantly higher – as much as 10 points higher. There were several recent months that OO had a negative arrival delay which means their flights on average arrived ahead of schedule more often than delayed.

The biggest difference between B6 and WN’s delay profile is that B6 frequently had dozens of flights per month (out of a little over 1000) that were more than 2 hours late. The most delay prone flights were from cities in the west – SLC, SMF, SFO – indicating the planes were probably delayed coming to that city and then further delayed due to ATC in the west. Their flights from BOS and JFK had many days when they arrived ahead of schedule.

B6 also schedules its last arrivals much closer to the end of the day than either DL or WN. Not all of the 2 hour plus delays were the last arrivals but having a flight scheduled at 9.30 pm means even a 91 minute delay will arrive after the curfew AND the one hour grace period. There are a couple OO and WN flights that landed beyond the curfew but nearly all of the flights that arrived after the curfew are B6’. Nowhere did LGB say that only B6 was being fined.

There are plenty of airports that have even more strict curfews; in some cases you can’t even land unless it is an emergency. California has some of the strictest noise regulations in the country and local communities are entitled to set the restrictions around the use of their airports, esp. those that are deep within urban areas which includes many in California.

B6 simply has to figure out how to operate in an airport with those kinds of restrictions. What they have done for LGB in the past is immaterial. The lack of gates at other airports in the LA basin and esp. LAX is the biggest reason they need to either rework their schedule so they can operate more on-time at LGB or walk away – regardless of who is ready to add flights. They can’t make money with fines as large as LGB is requiring. Other airlines have figured out how to operate in similarly restrictive airports; B6 is now forced to do the same thing at LGB.

I just looked at Jet Blue latest quarterly SEC filing. The say on time performance has dropped system wide from the mid 70% to the mid 60%. The reason is the congestion in the NE and airport construction there. Long Beach is not mentioned. Maybe the logical thing to do would be to adjust their schedule in the NE and LGB would be a non-issue. And I assume it is a non-issue to their management since is not mentioned in their filing.

MrBretz wrote:

I just looked at Jet Blue latest quarterly SEC filing. The say on time performance has dropped system wide from the mid 70% to the mid 60%. The reason is the congestion in the NE and airport construction there. Long Beach is not mentioned. Maybe the logical thing to do would be to adjust their schedule in the NE and LGB would be a non-issue. And I assume it is a non-issue to their management since is not mentioned in their filing.

You can see US carrier domestic on-time performance including by carrier for the largest cities here
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer

B6 does not make the published report but the data still goes into the DOT's database.

It may be worth noting that LGB has gotten *A LOT* busier lately.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-l ... story.html

I'm sure more than a few folks in Long Beach have taken notice.

LAXintl wrote:

This vendetta notion is nonsense.

LGB simply wants B6 to follow the established rules. As far as Intl flights and FIS, the city has zero obligation to commit to such and has opted to retain the status quo. And as far as SWA slots, they were awarded per long established new entrant rules when slots become available. SWA later gained access to additional slots which B6 was not making use of, again not the airports fault, but B6 for failing to utilize them appropriately.

As far as B6 making money or not LGB, that a commercial decision they need to make and determine what larger strategic value the operation has or not for them.
If B6 were to leave LGB, very likely others would happily back fill the slots request demand has continued to exceed those available.

LGB and it's residents are stuck in the 1950's, when it should be in 2017. No, the airport isn't at fault, it's the awful people running Long Beach.

SurfandSnow wrote:

It may be worth noting that LGB has gotten *A LOT* busier lately.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-l ... story.html

I'm sure more than a few folks in Long Beach have taken notice.

Much thank to Southwest. Also JetBlue finally utilizing their slot holdings more fully which is boosting pax counts.

Likely will see further growth as effective August 1st, SWA was awarded 2 additional slots permanently that were returned by AA.

Not so easy to 'adjust' the NE schedule; a little thing called summer storms keep popping up every day. When you combine that wit the NE congestion all that planning goes out the door.

And while we are at it lets talk about SW and how they have used their political influence to go into certain cities, stay there, and then used it as a shield so the competition can't come after them. If it wasn't for 'slick willie' and his political cronies, I can state directly SW would not be around if it wasn't for the 'help' they have obtained thru political favors. Ya, its a story no one wants to talk about but clearly happens all day long.

tphuang wrote:

ScottB wrote:

727200 wrote:

Doesn't matter if B6 has 20 flights within 30 min of the curfew, they are certainly within their rights to schedule and fly those planes.

Of course it matters that they schedule five flights within 30 minutes of the curfew, particularly when two of those flights are arrivals from JFK & BOS! B6 1013, the evening flight from JFK to LGB, is scheduled to arrive at 2135 but is delayed by 30 minutes or more (which would put the arrival after the curfew) 33% of the time. B6 405, scheduled to arrive LGB at 2131, arrives 30 minutes or more late 50% of the time! If they schedule flights from chronically-delayed airports like JFK & BOS with an arrival time fairly close to the curfew, that is just plain poor planning. The curfew existed before B6 started service to LGB -- heck, it's been around longer than B6 period.

727200 wrote:

LGB runs an airport and that function is to allow airlines and their planes to land and take off at the airport; it brings both good and economic value to the community for this to occur. Now, if politics comes into play and certain members of the governing body want to inhibit one carrier for the interest of another low-cost one, that is a position that must be addressed by the citizenry of Long Beach.

It has nothing to do with inhibiting one carrier in the interest of another one! The citizenry of Long Beach have vocally expressed their preference to not experience aircraft noise after 10 PM. A fine is pretty much the only workable means of penalizing a corporate entity.

CobaltScar wrote:

Hopefully this will just push JetBlue into the arms of Ontario

This isn't going to push B6 into the arms of ONT simply because that's not where B6's target market (i.e. customers of a premium low-fare carrier) wants to travel to or from. They could bulk up service at ONT tomorrow but they'd lose their shirts doing it!

flyby519 wrote:

the city of LGB has a vendetta against B6 for some odd reason.

What exactly is the supposed vendetta? Through the end of May, JetBlue was responsible for 85% of the 322 violations of the night curfew by commercial aircraft in 2017. They're also responsible for 94 of the 101 noise violations year-to-date. The number of violations compared to 2016 doubled year-over-year and are on pace to triple 2015's figure.

LAXintl wrote:

Tsk tsk on JetBlue. Certainly not endearing itself to the community as it flaunts the airport's curfew with a massive rise in violations.

What should be potentially more concerning to B6, if they intend to continue squatting on slots at LGB, is the proposal to strip carriers of slots for 20 more more violations in a 24-month period; B6 hits that number within a month or two.

roadpilot wrote:

It sounds like the violations are mostly on flights coming from the East Coast, more than likely a JFK flight running behind because of weather and ATC delays, if that's the case then the violation should be wavied, there's not much that the airline can do outside of cancelling the flight.

There's quite a bit they can do. They can re-time the flights to depart JFK/BOS earlier; they can shuffle aircraft scheduled for a trip in the case of late inbound flights or maintenance issues; they can schedule JFK/BOS-LGB as the beginning of a trip for crews. Those all might potentially increase costs and perhaps even make the flights uneconomic but they do have options to ameliorate the problem.

atl100million wrote:

The alternative is to operate the flights on time - retime the departures and make the priority at all cost - and then divert them to another airport and bus the passengers if necessary.

That's exactly true and what airlines operating to SNA manage to do...

Jetblue is loosing money selling all these sub 50 tickets to las and Bay Area. And southwest pr senc is driving yield even lower. Those JFK and bos transcon flights are really low yielding too. What is so precious about these lgb flyers that makes b6 so concerned about ticking them off and loosing slots.

Time to cut flights and let southwest fly their intra California routes. Lgb clearly has no appreciation for all those transcon flights that JetBlue provides. This is a marriage that's not working.

Nooooo!!!!! I fly several of those Transcons a few times per year. Sigh....

Lightsaber

tphuang wrote:

Jetblue is loosing money selling all these sub 50 tickets to las and Bay Area. And southwest pr senc is driving yield even lower. Those JFK and bos transcon flights are really low yielding too. What is so precious about these lgb flyers that makes b6 so concerned about ticking them off and loosing slots.

Time to cut flights and let southwest fly their intra California routes.

New slots became available last year and Southwest's decision to add service to LGB is apparently what prompted B6 management to actually use the slots on which they had been sitting for years. But no one forced B6 to add flights and/or lose money; if they don't think they can make money in the market then it's management's choice to continue to eat losses or call it quits. The dilemma B6 faces is that the only other operationally workable alternative in the greater L.A. region is ONT, and that's even worse from the perspectives of demand & demographics. They can't get enough gates at LAX to move the operation over.

LAXintl wrote:

This vendetta notion is nonsense.

LGB simply wants B6 to follow the established rules. As far as Intl flights and FIS, the city has zero obligation to commit to such and has opted to retain the status quo. And as far as SWA slots, they were awarded per long established new entrant rules when slots become available. SWA later gained access to additional slots which B6 was not making use of, again not the airports fault, but B6 for failing to utilize them appropriately.

Apparently not bending over to make changes which run counter to the very vocal local opposition against airport noise/expansion counts as a "vendetta." But you're right, it's nonsense! When B6 and the City made the agreement which led to the B6 focus city at LGB, I doubt international flights or an FIS were ever considered. In the past, the airport's policy with respect to B6's chronic slot underutilization was very, very lenient.

CobaltScar wrote:

JetBlue paid for most of their new terminal and renovations

Nope, the City issued bonds to pay for the terminal & renovations, and the bonds are being repaid through PFCs as well as airline use charges.

atl100milion wrote:

"You can see US carrier domestic on-time performance including by carrier for the largest cities here
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer

B6 does not make the published report but the data still goes into the DOT's database."

Thanks for this. JetBlue is absolutely on the bottom for ontime performance. They are worse than the 60% number quoted in the SEC filing. There's a bigger problem than LGB here.

I don't see any way that ONT can realistically be offered as an LGB alternative. A whole new and different market, maybe, but not an alternative. If the 91 weren't such a disaster, I could possibly see it, but 91's virtually impassible for key parts of the day, and 57 ain't much better. At least, that's how it was when I used to travel regularly to OC; SNA usually, but LGB when I could make it work. Flying to ONT would have been a non-starter back then, and I can't imagine that traffic has improved.

LAXintl wrote:

Likely will see further growth as effective August 1st, SWA was awarded 2 additional slots permanently that were returned by AA.

Is anybody else asking for LGB slots other than WN?

Thank you,
David

Most recently Delta (received 2 additional), and Sun Country as new entrant but they did not follow up. Rumor over the winter was Horizon(Alaska) was looking to get back into LGB also.

ScottB wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Jetblue is loosing money selling all these sub 50 tickets to las and Bay Area. And southwest pr senc is driving yield even lower. Those JFK and bos transcon flights are really low yielding too. What is so precious about these lgb flyers that makes b6 so concerned about ticking them off and loosing slots.

Time to cut flights and let southwest fly their intra California routes.

New slots became available last year and Southwest's decision to add service to LGB is apparently what prompted B6 management to actually use the slots on which they had been sitting for years. But no one forced B6 to add flights and/or lose money; if they don't think they can make money in the market then it's management's choice to continue to eat losses or call it quits. The dilemma B6 faces is that the only other operationally workable alternative in the greater L.A. region is ONT, and that's even worse from the perspectives of demand & demographics. They can't get enough gates at LAX to move the operation over.

LAXintl wrote:

This vendetta notion is nonsense.

LGB simply wants B6 to follow the established rules. As far as Intl flights and FIS, the city has zero obligation to commit to such and has opted to retain the status quo. And as far as SWA slots, they were awarded per long established new entrant rules when slots become available. SWA later gained access to additional slots which B6 was not making use of, again not the airports fault, but B6 for failing to utilize them appropriately.

Apparently not bending over to make changes which run counter to the very vocal local opposition against airport noise/expansion counts as a "vendetta." But you're right, it's nonsense! When B6 and the City made the agreement which led to the B6 focus city at LGB, I doubt international flights or an FIS were ever considered. In the past, the airport's policy with respect to B6's chronic slot underutilization was very, very lenient.

CobaltScar wrote:

JetBlue paid for most of their new terminal and renovations

Nope, the City issued bonds to pay for the terminal & renovations, and the bonds are being repaid through PFCs as well as airline use charges.

And it's clear that using all of those slots is not working out for either party. Time for JetBlue to cut flights, maybe not all flights, but there is no reason to be selling tickets at what they are selling. And southwest can get those slots, but there is no way they will fly to fll JFK bos or aus. It will most likely resemble their operations at Ontario.

In the end of the day, it is unusual for an airport like lgb which had very little activity prior to JetBlue to get as a wide variety of destinations like they are getting. This relationship has clearly deteriorated. And there is really no reason why JetBlue should not be moving some of their flights to Burbank and Ontario. You keep saying Ontario is an even lower yield crowd. Have you seen the fares out of lgb these days? And base on what I have read on this forum, Burbank has at least one gate and slacks in other gates that JetBlue can use. And jetsuitex operates out of there also. Hey can certainly move those transcon to Burbank. No reason for JetBlue to keep current level of operation out of lgb.

If anything, deploying these planes in Boston and New York will help with their on time issues.

lightsaber wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

B6 should pull out of LGB and reinforce LAX and BUR to capacity. The City of Long Beach is business prohibitive and the airport should be razed. Having a community of fanatical NIMBY's surrounding an airport that has been there before well before most of these people and their parents, it's amazing how the city panders to them. It's no wonder the city is a dump. Downtown is completely run down and full of Hobos. Long Beach has so much potential for high tourism but they prefer to cater to the local lynch mob and paid off local politicians and install a ridiculous cap on flights and a stiff curfew.

Nooooo!!!!

I love B6 out if LGB. B6 should expand out of LAX. These fines probably will result in one or two retired flights and one or two cancelled... Sigh...

Lightsaber

Sorry Lightsaber. I love the convenience of using B6 for most of my NY transcons but if it's not a good business model for the airline, and we all know LGB offers low yields then these curfew fees will really hit those numbers hard. Anyone flying out of JFK alone know taxi times average at least 45 minutes, add weather 75% of the year and anything coming out of the northeast is going to be late.

tphuang wrote:

ScottB wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Jetblue is loosing money selling all these sub 50 tickets to las and Bay Area. And southwest pr senc is driving yield even lower. Those JFK and bos transcon flights are really low yielding too. What is so precious about these lgb flyers that makes b6 so concerned about ticking them off and loosing slots.

Time to cut flights and let southwest fly their intra California routes.

New slots became available last year and Southwest's decision to add service to LGB is apparently what prompted B6 management to actually use the slots on which they had been sitting for years. But no one forced B6 to add flights and/or lose money; if they don't think they can make money in the market then it's management's choice to continue to eat losses or call it quits. The dilemma B6 faces is that the only other operationally workable alternative in the greater L.A. region is ONT, and that's even worse from the perspectives of demand & demographics. They can't get enough gates at LAX to move the operation over.

LAXintl wrote:

This vendetta notion is nonsense.

LGB simply wants B6 to follow the established rules. As far as Intl flights and FIS, the city has zero obligation to commit to such and has opted to retain the status quo. And as far as SWA slots, they were awarded per long established new entrant rules when slots become available. SWA later gained access to additional slots which B6 was not making use of, again not the airports fault, but B6 for failing to utilize them appropriately.

Apparently not bending over to make changes which run counter to the very vocal local opposition against airport noise/expansion counts as a "vendetta." But you're right, it's nonsense! When B6 and the City made the agreement which led to the B6 focus city at LGB, I doubt international flights or an FIS were ever considered. In the past, the airport's policy with respect to B6's chronic slot underutilization was very, very lenient.

CobaltScar wrote:

JetBlue paid for most of their new terminal and renovations

Nope, the City issued bonds to pay for the terminal & renovations, and the bonds are being repaid through PFCs as well as airline use charges.

And it's clear that using all of those slots is not working out for either party. Time for JetBlue to cut flights, maybe not all flights, but there is no reason to be selling tickets at what they are selling. And southwest can get those slots, but there is no way they will fly to fll JFK bos or aus. It will most likely resemble their operations at Ontario.

In the end of the day, it is unusual for an airport like lgb which had very little activity prior to JetBlue to get as a wide variety of destinations like they are getting. This relationship has clearly deteriorated. And there is really no reason why JetBlue should not be moving some of their flights to Burbank and Ontario. You keep saying Ontario is an even lower yield crowd. Have you seen the fares out of lgb these days? And base on what I have read on this forum, Burbank has at least one gate and slacks in other gates that JetBlue can use. And jetsuitex operates out of there also. Hey can certainly move those transcon to Burbank. No reason for JetBlue to keep current level of operation out of lgb.

If anything, deploying these planes in Boston and New York will help with their on time issues.

I agree. They have one dedicated gate at BUR with one daily to JFK right now. There are a few very underutilized shared gates that B6 could almost match their LGB ops and not be penalized with a curfew violation fine as the curfew at BUR is voluntary. With the NEO coming soon the short runways will become a non issue as most likely will any wx related fuel stop or any passenger restriction. I can see BUR pushing 20-25 daily easily. Let's also not forget the new terminal that will start being built shortly.

727200 wrote:

Not so easy to 'adjust' the NE schedule; a little thing called summer storms keep popping up every day. When you combine that wit the NE congestion all that planning goes out the door.

And while we are at it lets talk about SW and how they have used their political influence to go into certain cities, stay there, and then used it as a shield so the competition can't come after them. If it wasn't for 'slick willie' and his political cronies, I can state directly SW would not be around if it wasn't for the 'help' they have obtained thru political favors. Ya, its a story no one wants to talk about but clearly happens all day long.

Not familiar with this. What did Clinton do for them?

tphuang wrote:

And it's clear that using all of those slots is not working out for either party. Time for JetBlue to cut flights, maybe not all flights, but there is no reason to be selling tickets at what they are selling. And southwest can get those slots, but there is no way they will fly to fll JFK bos or aus. It will most likely resemble their operations at Ontario.

WN runs 34 daily departures from ONT to nine destinations including DAL & MDW -- a service pattern like that certainly wouldn't be significantly worse than what they have now and it'd be better than what they had a couple of years ago before B6 management decided to start using all their slots again.

tphuang wrote:

In the end of the day, it is unusual for an airport like lgb which had very little activity prior to JetBlue to get as a wide variety of destinations like they are getting. This relationship has clearly deteriorated. And there is really no reason why JetBlue should not be moving some of their flights to Burbank and Ontario. You keep saying Ontario is an even lower yield crowd. Have you seen the fares out of lgb these days? And base on what I have read on this forum, Burbank has at least one gate and slacks in other gates that JetBlue can use. And jetsuitex operates out of there also. Hey can certainly move those transcon to Burbank. No reason for JetBlue to keep current level of operation out of lgb.

And you think yields at ONT would stay where they currently are if B6 added a couple of dozen new daily flights in the same markets they serve from LGB? Good luck with that! WN won't just walk away from ONT and they have substantial advantages in schedule and frequent flyer loyalty.

"[O]ne gate and slacks in other gates" at BUR is simply inadequate for B6 to replicate the LGB operation. If they can't get aircraft to LGB before the curfew due to ATC/weather delays, you think they're going to be a better job slotting into the gaps in the schedules of other airlines? I don't. Other airlines aren't going to rush to turn their aircraft or tow RONs off the gate to let B6 park. And B6 used to operate something like three daily flights to JFK. They're down to one for a reason. Plus BUR isn't great for transcon flights due to performance limitations in certain wind conditions/runway configurations.

727200 wrote:

Not so easy to 'adjust' the NE schedule; a little thing called summer storms keep popping up every day. When you combine that wit the NE congestion all that planning goes out the door.

If "a little thing called summer storms keep popping up every day" then it is positively moronic to schedule flights which have only 30 minutes (or less!) of leeway to avoid busting the curfew.

PITingres wrote:

I don't see any way that ONT can realistically be offered as an LGB alternative. A whole new and different market, maybe, but not an alternative. If the 91 weren't such a disaster, I could possibly see it, but 91's virtually impassible for key parts of the day, and 57 ain't much better. At least, that's how it was when I used to travel regularly to OC; SNA usually, but LGB when I could make it work. Flying to ONT would have been a non-starter back then, and I can't imagine that traffic has improved.

Why would you take the 91 when ONT is between the 10 & 60?

mercure1 wrote:

One would imagine JetBlue would do all it can to earn good reputation and win the hearts and minds of citizens and politicians at LGB since they desire to allow international flights and maybe also gain additional slots one day, but instead, now they bring more negative attention to themselves with such large increase in curfew violations. Not very good PR.

Long Beach either doesn't know or doesn't CARE that JBLU could possibly move out of there. It's NOT like they can't move. It's just if they have the will to.

strfyr51 wrote:

Long Beach either doesn't know or doesn't CARE that JBLU could possibly move out of there.

They also now have Southwest who would probably have few hesitations expanding their O&D market share leading position in SoCal.

atl100million wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

atl100million wrote:

Go for it, then.


Just let us know which airport that might be as well as how the market size compares to LGB.

Dozens of cities , on the east coast.

Leave LGB for SWA so they can monopolize it and increase fares.

Then b6 merge with Alaska after a few years after both airlines enjoy operating and their own respective fiefdoms on the west/east coast at higher margins than if they competed in each others back yards.

/profit

(or if the political climate is right maybe it will be SWA themselves buying b6, would love to fly into LGB then and ask the pax how they are enjoying their tripled airfare tickets to less places, between sips of tea)

It would be a whole lot easier if B6 could just figure out how to get planes into LGB before the curfew. A rework of their schedule just might be what is needed but let's be clear that LGB has simply said they don't want ANYONE's commercial aircraft arriving after 11 pm or there will be fines. other carriers have figured out how to work within that system at LGB and similar rules in other cities.

I'll send a message to BOS & JFK ATC to give priority to LGB bound aircraft and have them jump the lines to depart first. And I'll send a note to the weather gods to make sure there's no storms in the area when B6 has a flight.

ScottB wrote:

WN runs 34 daily departures from ONT to nine destinations including DAL & MDW -- a service pattern like that certainly wouldn't be significantly worse than what they have now and it'd be better than what they had a couple of years ago before B6 management decided to start using all their slots again.

Service to JFK, BOS and FLL are routes that WN simply cannot replicate out of LGB. The idea that flying to Dallas and a daily flight secondary airport in Chicago (between BUR and ONT) is equivalent to 4 daily transcon flights to major east coast destinations (including 2 to JFK) + 2 daily flights to Seattle and Austin each is laughable.

Outside of the new daily flight to FLL, the recent additions out of LGB were to bay area, additional frequencies to LAS, flights to reno, SMF and SLC. Saying that somehow the more exotic destinations were added as a result of using all the slots is completely false

If "a little thing called summer storms keep popping up every day" then it is positively moronic to schedule flights which have only 30 minutes (or less!) of leeway to avoid busting the curfew.

B6 at this point doesn't see much future in LGB. Isn't that pretty clear by now? it's called indifference.

And you think yields at ONT would stay where they currently are if B6 added a couple of dozen new daily flights in the same markets they serve from LGB? Good luck with that! WN won't just walk away from ONT and they have substantial advantages in schedule and frequent flyer loyalty.

"[O]ne gate and slacks in other gates" at BUR is simply inadequate for B6 to replicate the LGB operation. If they can't get aircraft to LGB before the curfew due to ATC/weather delays, you think they're going to be a better job slotting into the gaps in the schedules of other airlines? I don't. Other airlines aren't going to rush to turn their aircraft or tow RONs off the gate to let B6 park. And B6 used to operate something like three daily flights to JFK. They're down to one for a reason. Plus BUR isn't great for transcon flights due to performance limitations in certain wind conditions/runway configurations.

I said cut down on flights out of LGB. I didn't say stop flying out of LGB. Big difference. There is no reason to reward LGB with flights they wouldn't get otherwise. Just treat it like how WN treats LGB, which is another regional airport in LA. One flight to JFK + intra-california routes + LAS, that's all you need.

If you bothered reading the guy who posted the following

I agree. They have one dedicated gate at BUR with one daily to JFK right now. There are a few very underutilized shared gates that B6 could almost match their LGB ops and not be penalized with a curfew violation fine as the curfew at BUR is voluntary

If you go by 9 flights a day per gate with one that's dedicated + 2 or 3 with a lot of slack, that's easily 20+ flights a day, which would match their presence in LGB prior to the recent increase to utilize all the slots.

And guess what, they were profitable when they were flying 20 to 25 daily flights out of LGBs. Now they are not profitable anymore.

B6 gave it a try because they wanted to keep WN out and get the FIS built. That didn't work. Relationship with LGB has now soured. No reason to keep it up.

BUR is at a much better location and has enough gate space to get to 20+ flights a day. It's much higher yielding and closer to big money contract that they are already getting as a result of mint flight. They could even add a couple of mint flight to BUR out of JFK. JetSuiteX can keep expanding out of BUR.

Keep LGB to around 10 flights a day. If they actually put themselves on waiting list at SNA, they will get 3 slots. Avoid ONT like plague.

They are going to be at 20 to 25 flights a day out of LAX by this point next year assuming they continue to get 2 gates + 4 CUTE gates with a lot of slack.

That in total is about 60 flights a day out of LA basin.

atl100million wrote:

A $6000 fine per flight is the equivalent of dozens of average fares per flight even from JFK. If the flight is from other cities, the percentage of the flight's revenue going to fines is much higher

The alternative is to operate the flights on time - retime the departures and make the priority at all cost - and then divert them to another airport and bus the passengers if necessary.

B6 can't be making money at LGB with fines that high but they have no place else in the LA area to move their flights.

At least the Long Beach City library is getting some extra revenue

Ontario Airport is ready and waiting for Jetblues return. Now that the airport is under local control and the fees are lower it may happen.

PITingres wrote:

I don't see any way that ONT can realistically be offered as an LGB alternative. A whole new and different market, maybe, but not an alternative. If the 91 weren't such a disaster, I could possibly see it, but 91's virtually impassible for key parts of the day, and 57 ain't much better. At least, that's how it was when I used to travel regularly to OC; SNA usually, but LGB when I could make it work. Flying to ONT would have been a non-starter back then, and I can't imagine that traffic has improved.

Traffic was great at Ontario for JetBlue. Flights were packed. It was only after the terminal fees were raised that they left. Maybe with the lower fees they can return.

Honest question here, but why did JetBlue agree to the consent decree? After the FIS was shot down, couldn't B6 have just not agreed to the additional fines and forced the city's hand ?