Who ever claimed "the more exotic destinations" were added due to JetBlue's desire to squat on its slots? The point was that WN runs 34 departures from ONT daily; B6 was well below that from LGB a couple of years ago with a comparable number of destinations.
And I would argue that DAL & MDW are far more useful destinations for passengers from LGB than AUS, FLL, and BOS; both DAL/DFW and ORD/MDW are far larger markets from the L.A. Basin than AUS, MIA/FLL/PBI, or BOS/PVD/MHT. And you complain about MDW being a secondary airport in Chicago when FLL is a secondary airport in South Florida? Laughable. MDW has the largest single-airline mainline operation by departures in the Midwest and it's the fourth-largest in the U.S. by that metric.
If B6 cuts down its slots to 15 and WN/DL gets those. All LGB will get is intra-california flights and a couple of flights to DAL. Say goodbye to these transcon flights or the 4 a day to SLC or the 2 a day to SEA and AUS.
completely laughable. One flight between BUR and ONT to MDW is somehow better options than 4 flights to JFK, BOS and FLL. You conveniently leave out JFK. Point is JFK, BOS, FLL, AUS are not offered at all from BUR, SNA and ONT outside of B6's own flight at BUR. Both AA and UA also offer ORD out of SNA and AA also offers DFW out of SNA. LGB would not get these flights unless it was B6 focus city.
And I love in point of WN's MDW presence vs FLL. Guess what? FLL is a busier airport than MDW, it has more domestic action than MIA. It has many international airlines which allows transfer to places like DXB, BCN, LHR, LGW, CDG, most of central and south aAmerica. None of which is offered by WN out of MDW.
If you start looking at the options out of JFK/BOS vs MDW or DAL, it's quite a stark contrast.
It's pretty sad for to try explain MDW and DAL are somehow more important than JFK/BOS/FLL/SEA/AUS.
Cranky flier who actually use LGB had an article on thishttp://crankyflier.com/2016/07/26/long- ... tblue-war/
And... increasing the penalties for non-compliance with the City's noise ordinance would appear to be the correct solution for dealing with indifference on the part of a violator. If B6 is indifferent to the wishes expressed by the community and codified into law by the slot ordinance, perhaps they're not a good neighbor to have around.
B6 was great for LGB for a long time and all it got out of that was getting humiliated on the FIS decision. Now, it is in a situation where it looses vast of money. LGB has decided to get tough on B6 and B6 will only loose more money from this. I don't see why it wants keep its current presence level.
The problem for B6 in the end would be that their yields would get even worse in the short-haul markets if WN gets more slots given that they'd most likely add flights to some combination of OAK/SJC/SFO/LAS/PHX/DEN/DAL/HOU/MDW -- given that WN's core business is short-haul.
B6 was already battling WN's presence at all of the LA basin airport. They are already at sub $50 for these flights because of that. Gary Kelly has specifically said that people could fly WN out of LGB and fly back at another airport with WN. So clearly, WN pricing and schedule at other LA airports already affect LGB.
To WN, LGB is just another little airport. If it doesn't work out, it will cut its presence. LGB will never receive the kind of preferential treatment it got from B6 prior to 2016.
B6 only manages 175 daily departures from 29 gates at JFK and you think they'd be able to effectively do nine flights daily per gate at BUR? I don't. Moreover, achieving high gate utilization relies in part on running a reliable, on-time operation -- their problems with the noise ordinance at LGB stem from the fact that they're not.
They're not going to see better profits on intra-California from BUR because WN is already in all those markets. Leaving LGB for BUR is essentially exchanging one problem for a different wording of the same problem. Additionally, BUR also has a voluntary curfew on late-night commercial flights. Do you think the airport and the surrounding community will be happy to work with B6 given their history of violating the curfew at LGB? I don't. Do you think BUR will build an FIS for B6 when they keep operating flights outside the curfew? I don't.
Splitting flights among four airports in greater Los Angeles works only if they can have a robust schedule at each (what WN does apart from LGB) or have a large operation at a single central airport (AA, DL, UA, AS/VX at LAX) with flights from the secondaries to hubs. Most passengers aren't going to try to figure out that they have to go to BUR if they want to fly to AUS, SEA, or FLL; LGB if they want to go to SJC or OAK; LAX if they want to go to JFK/BOS.
B6 does not fully utilize its gates at JFK. It stated that multiple times recently. This is a well known fact.
It in fact schedules 8 flights out of its one gate at ORD in summer time and has no problems despite of all the delays at JFK and BOS. At LAX, it's going to get to over 20 flights a day by summer 2018 with only 2 dedicates gates. It clearly has no problem with 8 to 10 flights a day out of a gate.
You are now just desperate that we have pointed out B6 can easily move out of LGB with no negative consequences. There is nothing special about LGB that B6 has to stay there. B6 already plans to split flights among 4 airports in LA, so moving more flights to Burbank would not change anything. Clearly, Burbank is better located and higher yielding and can help B6 getting more of the high value customers.
B6 doesn't need FIS station at BUR. It wasn't getting one in LGB. That's a done issue.
The question is what can it do now at LGB?
Cutting down flights significantly and migrating it to BUR is a better option.
Moving to ONT is an option.
Another option is just to cut down the flights that's not making money and put those aircraft back into use at its East coast hubs. BUR and ONT are not getting more flights. B6 can always move there after it figures out a West Coast strategy.