Airliners.net

AAlaxfan wrote:

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?

Trying to get to the Aliso Viejo area at the time. It's simple enough from SNA or LGB, nightmarish from ONT. I would expect that a big chunk of LGB traffic from the south would feel the same way, but I'm no native and I haven't been there for 5-6 years.

It's too bad that El Toro was turned into the "great park" (?!); I would have bulldozed SNA and moved everything to El Toro, but nobody asked me.

PItingres, you haven't lived in OC very long. The El Toro base has a long history. And if it were being used, Aliso Viejo is directly in the flight path. Since we are neighbors, I am happy it never happened. Study the history. The rich people in Newport wanted their historical NIMBY problem moved to make it someone else's problem. They lost.

I have flown into ONT maybe twice in my life. SNA, LGB, or LAX are a much better alternative. BUR is out of the question for South OC folks.

MrBretz wrote:

PItingres, you haven't lived in OC very long. The El Toro base has a long history. And if it were being used, Aliso Viejo is directly in the flight path. Since we are neighbors, I am happy it never happened. Study the history. The rich people in Newport wanted their historical NIMBY problem moved to make it someone else's problem. They lost.

I have flown into ONT maybe twice in my life. SNA, LGB, or LAX are a much better alternative. BUR is out of the question for South OC folks.

Not quite. If the price is right BUR is not out of reach for South OC. I live in San Clemente and I have on multiple occasions booked rt fares on B6 to JFK at $220-$250 while the lowest on them or any other carrier at LGB, LAX, SNA hovered around $500. You can take the metrolink train from south OC to Burbank station and not have to deal with traffic.

Nine4nine said:

"Not quite. If the price is right BUR is not out of reach for South OC. I live in San Clemente and I have on multiple occasions booked rt fares on B6 to JFK at $220-$250 while the lowest on them or any other carrier at LGB, LAX, SNA hovered around $500. You can take the metrolink train from south OC to Burbank station and not have to deal with traffic."

Thanks for that. I was thinking of driving. I will look into that. One trouble is I would have to deal with the wife's luggage. And, using maps.google, I notice a rather lengthy transit on the train. But I will look further.

carljanderson wrote:

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 ?

They did it for the same reason any firm signs a consent decree: they looked at their possible losses in court and the probability of losing and decided the consent decree was a better outcome. Corporate communications people like the language 'We're putting this behind us.'

The consent decree goes back to 2003 for settlement of 30 counts of criminal charges filed against the carrier in superior court.

JetBlue entered into to the consent decree and agreement to pay initial $3,000 per flight fine in return for the city agreeing to continue sentencing on the 2002 case and refrain from further criminal prosecution. The criminal case charged JetBlue with repeat violations of city noise ordinance with no reasonable basis for believing carrier would comply with the city's law.

The updated current consent decree with agreement by JetBlue to pay $6,000 right away per violation is basically attempted to lock in and hopefully shield carrier from any actions the city council might take while it reviews the overall noise ordinance. For all one knows maybe the council adopts even stiffer fines, including talk about the loss of slot usage for repeated violations. This is basically JetBlue trying to get out ahead of things.

tphuang wrote:

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

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.

tphuang wrote:

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

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.

tphuang wrote:

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.

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.

tphuang wrote:

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 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.

tphuang wrote:

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.

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.

Super80Fan wrote:

LGB and it's residents are stuck in the 1950's, when it should be in 2017.

Actually, the 1950s were more the time of "build whatever and ignore the wishes of neighbors" than 2017. Those were the times when neighborhoods were razed to build freeways and no one cared about the impact of airport noise on people living nearby. In 2017 in California, the pendulum has swung the other way -- perhaps too far -- but that's reality.

nine4nine wrote:

If the price is right BUR is not out of reach for South OC. I live in San Clemente and I have on multiple occasions booked rt fares on B6 to JFK at $220-$250 while the lowest on them or any other carrier at LGB, LAX, SNA hovered around $500. You can take the metrolink train from south OC to Burbank station and not have to deal with traffic.

Except... that's not the business B6 really wants to grab. They're not making money on a $250 round-trip from BUR to JFK and they would have gotten more money from you if you had booked the higher fare from LGB or LAX (and you're brand-loyal).

AAlaxfan wrote:

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.

Maybe you should instead send a message to B6's scheduling department to have them reschedule the flights to arrive earlier than 30 minutes before the curfew. If everything has to go right (ATC, weather, crews, inbound aircraft arriving, maintenance) in order to avoid busting the curfew, it makes more sense to plan for flights from delay-prone airports to take delays. Duh. We get airline apologists on this board who blame passengers for accepting connections sold by an airline as legal at certain airports with under an hour or two of connection time and yet we can't expect the people scheduling the planes to do their job well enough to avoid breaking a long-established curfew on a regular basis? Ludicrous!

ScottB wrote:

tphuang wrote:

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

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.

tphuang wrote:

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

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.

tphuang wrote:

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.

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.

tphuang wrote:

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 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.

tphuang wrote:

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.

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.

Super80Fan wrote:

LGB and it's residents are stuck in the 1950's, when it should be in 2017.

Actually, the 1950s were more the time of "build whatever and ignore the wishes of neighbors" than 2017. Those were the times when neighborhoods were razed to build freeways and no one cared about the impact of airport noise on people living nearby. In 2017 in California, the pendulum has swung the other way -- perhaps too far -- but that's reality.

nine4nine wrote:

If the price is right BUR is not out of reach for South OC. I live in San Clemente and I have on multiple occasions booked rt fares on B6 to JFK at $220-$250 while the lowest on them or any other carrier at LGB, LAX, SNA hovered around $500. You can take the metrolink train from south OC to Burbank station and not have to deal with traffic.

Except... that's not the business B6 really wants to grab. They're not making money on a $250 round-trip from BUR to JFK and they would have gotten more money from you if you had booked the higher fare from LGB or LAX (and you're brand-loyal).

AAlaxfan wrote:

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.

Maybe you should instead send a message to B6's scheduling department to have them reschedule the flights to arrive earlier than 30 minutes before the curfew. If everything has to go right (ATC, weather, crews, inbound aircraft arriving, maintenance) in order to avoid busting the curfew, it makes more sense to plan for flights from delay-prone airports to take delays. Duh. We get airline apologists on this board who blame passengers for accepting connections sold by an airline as legal at certain airports with under an hour or two of connection time and yet we can't expect the people scheduling the planes to do their job well enough to avoid breaking a long-established curfew on a regular basis? Ludicrous!

Why would B6 have to overlap dominant WN markets at BUR? WN doesn't fly further than SLC. B6 can easily offer ORD, BOS, FLL, SEA, and reinforce JFK along with any other routes they deem necessary. There are two gates that aren't utilized in addition to the one B6 dedicated gate. The gate AA uses is down to only 3x PHX and that can be used too. As far as a FIS facility I'm sure the city and the voters would approve that addition to the new terminal as they are much more lenient nimbys than those around LGB, just as long as the 14 gate agreement BUR is allowed aren't added to. With HA being a possible suiter at BUR with the NEO that could allow additional east coast feed to connect in addition to LAX service. WN has a great relationship with the city of Burbank as the city does what it can for the airline something LGB lacks. You mention the curfew? Yes BUR is voluntary curfew unlike LGB and yes fairly often the B6 inbound and turn to JFK runs late so that's basically a non issue and no fine there. I know a few nimbys who live at the end of rwy15 and they don't say much of the late departures or arrivals.

What I don't quite understand, people saying B6 should just get up and move to BUR or ONT or other airports, do you not think WN and to a lesser extent AS will immediately respond strongly as stronger CA airlines?

ScottB has got it in his post above. B6 has to fix their on-time problem if they have a chance of keeping LGB.

As much as LGB is the issue here. they are losing business travelers - or can't gain them - because business travelers are simply not going to endure multi-hour delays and a 60% system on-time.

B6 is running too tight of a schedule in heavily delay prone and noise sensitive airports. They have tried for years to fly as many flights as possible with their fleet - and they aren't going to fix their on-time problem until they keep some spares and put some slack in their schedule.

And, to be fair, WN went on and on about fixing its on-time situation a couple years ago, jumped to the top of the charts but then threw a bunch of capacity back into their system by increasing aircraft utilization - and their on-time performance fell.

As much as people diss DL's fleet age, it is precisely because of having a number of older aircraft that they can keep spares around so they can get their schedule back on track. When an airport is on an extended ATC program and some carriers have better on-time performance than others, it becomes obvious that the difference is the ability to get aircraft in position better than other carriers do.

B6 is paying the price at LGB for their aggressive fleet scheduling. They have been able to retain enough discount passengers on other routes despite their delays. LGB simply will not allow them to continue to operate well past their scheduled times and not pay a price that will likely make its flights there no longer viable.

It is a fallacy to think they will go to another airport and be able to operate the same way without consequences. They have to fix their on-time problem.

atl100million wrote:

ScottB has got it in his post above. B6 has to fix their on-time problem if they have a chance of keeping LGB.

As much as LGB is the issue here. they are losing business travelers - or can't gain them - because business travelers are simply not going to endure multi-hour delays and a 60% system on-time.

B6 is running too tight of a schedule in heavily delay prone and noise sensitive airports. They have tried for years to fly as many flights as possible with their fleet - and they aren't going to fix their on-time problem until they keep some spares and put some slack in their schedule.

And, to be fair, WN went on and on about fixing its on-time situation a couple years ago, jumped to the top of the charts but then threw a bunch of capacity back into their system by increasing aircraft utilization - and their on-time performance fell.

As much as people diss DL's fleet age, it is precisely because of having a number of older aircraft that they can keep spares around so they can get their schedule back on track. When an airport is on an extended ATC program and some carriers have better on-time performance than others, it becomes obvious that the difference is the ability to get aircraft in position better than other carriers do.

B6 is paying the price at LGB for their aggressive fleet scheduling. They have been able to retain enough discount passengers on other routes despite their delays. LGB simply will not allow them to continue to operate well past their scheduled times and not pay a price that will likely make its flights there no longer viable.

It is a fallacy to think they will go to another airport and be able to operate the same way without consequences. They have to fix their on-time problem.

And how do you recommend to fix that when two of your main focus cities are in the northeast (JFK,BOS)? If it isn't the weather (thunderstorms in the summer and fall, snow/ice/rain winter and spring) then it's atc or extra long taxi times. I flew from JFK on Monday evening and departing the gate to wheels up was 58 minutes. It has nothing to do with aggressive scheduling as you say, more just the nature of the beast. If LGB cannot be accommodating to its main carrier, who calls LGB a focus city and brigs a lot of revenue and tourists to the city, then B6 should find somewhere else to call home. And with your "aggressive schedule" claim you are referring to operating flight times that would be unappealing to your everyday Joe and business traveler. If my meeting wraps up at 3 and I catch a 5pm from JFK to get home that's unreasonable and aggressive? The airport is a joke plain and simple and would best fit your local regional carriers and regional flights.

nine4nine wrote:

atl100million wrote:

ScottB has got it in his post above. B6 has to fix their on-time problem if they have a chance of keeping LGB.

As much as LGB is the issue here. they are losing business travelers - or can't gain them - because business travelers are simply not going to endure multi-hour delays and a 60% system on-time.

B6 is running too tight of a schedule in heavily delay prone and noise sensitive airports. They have tried for years to fly as many flights as possible with their fleet - and they aren't going to fix their on-time problem until they keep some spares and put some slack in their schedule.

And, to be fair, WN went on and on about fixing its on-time situation a couple years ago, jumped to the top of the charts but then threw a bunch of capacity back into their system by increasing aircraft utilization - and their on-time performance fell.

As much as people diss DL's fleet age, it is precisely because of having a number of older aircraft that they can keep spares around so they can get their schedule back on track. When an airport is on an extended ATC program and some carriers have better on-time performance than others, it becomes obvious that the difference is the ability to get aircraft in position better than other carriers do.

B6 is paying the price at LGB for their aggressive fleet scheduling. They have been able to retain enough discount passengers on other routes despite their delays. LGB simply will not allow them to continue to operate well past their scheduled times and not pay a price that will likely make its flights there no longer viable.

It is a fallacy to think they will go to another airport and be able to operate the same way without consequences. They have to fix their on-time problem.

And how do you recommend to fix that when two of your main focus cities are in the northeast (JFK,BOS)? If it isn't the weather (thunderstorms in the summer and fall, snow/ice/rain winter and spring) then it's atc or extra long taxi times. I flew from JFK on Monday evening and departing the gate to wheels up was 58 minutes. It has nothing to do with aggressive scheduling as you say, more just the nature of the beast. If LGB cannot be accommodating to its main carrier, who calls LGB a focus city and brigs a lot of revenue and tourists to the city, then B6 should find somewhere else to call home. And with your "aggressive schedule" claim you are referring to operating flight times that would be unappealing to your everyday Joe and business traveler. If my meeting wraps up at 3 and I catch a 5pm from JFK to get home that's unreasonable and aggressive? The airport is a joke plain and simple and would best fit your local regional carriers and regional flights.

you do realize that DL and UA both operate very large hub operations in the NE? This isn't an unsolvable problem. It does require pulling off the throttle. Other carriers have figured out how to work in the same delay prone airports and others that are equally as bad and have much higher on-time performance.

I truly hope that there are people at B6 who can accept the nature of what they have to work w/ and fix their performance better than you and others that just see them as the hapless victims of a situation they can't control.

They may not be able to control the airport situation at JFK but they can schedule so that their flights are on-time based on that reality. But that requires spending a lot more on crew time than they do. They get by with it because so many of their passengers are local JFK passengers and just endure the wait. Business travelers won't. There are alternatives that are more likely to be on-time... and other airlines DO figure out how to publish schedules that business travelers want.

nine4nine wrote:

And how do you recommend to fix that when two of your main focus cities are in the northeast (JFK,BOS)? If it isn't the weather (thunderstorms in the summer and fall, snow/ice/rain winter and spring) then it's atc or extra long taxi times. I flew from JFK on Monday evening and departing the gate to wheels up was 58 minutes. It has nothing to do with aggressive scheduling as you say, more just the nature of the beast. If LGB cannot be accommodating to its main carrier, who calls LGB a focus city and brigs a lot of revenue and tourists to the city, then B6 should find somewhere else to call home. And with your "aggressive schedule" claim you are referring to operating flight times that would be unappealing to your everyday Joe and business traveler. If my meeting wraps up at 3 and I catch a 5pm from JFK to get home that's unreasonable and aggressive? The airport is a joke plain and simple and would best fit your local regional carriers and regional flights.

Improving performance is not rocket science. Its only cost money.

How about things such as:

o Maintain spare aircraft and reserve crews on the West Coast.
o Isolate flying, so aircraft and crews don't need to flow across network such as waiting for East-coast inbounds
o No longer scheduled flights from markets like JFK and BOS into LGB within 30-mins of curfew.
o Publish more realistic block times in order to raise DOT A14 performance
o Adopt fuel/speed policy that places priority on ontime performance, not simply fuel conservation.

All are quite possible to achieve (how do you think UA has managed to rank #1 for 3 months running in DOT numbers now) They just take a true desire to improve the operation, and the willingness to fund such changes.

LAXintl wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

And how do you recommend to fix that when two of your main focus cities are in the northeast (JFK,BOS)? If it isn't the weather (thunderstorms in the summer and fall, snow/ice/rain winter and spring) then it's atc or extra long taxi times. I flew from JFK on Monday evening and departing the gate to wheels up was 58 minutes. It has nothing to do with aggressive scheduling as you say, more just the nature of the beast. If LGB cannot be accommodating to its main carrier, who calls LGB a focus city and brigs a lot of revenue and tourists to the city, then B6 should find somewhere else to call home. And with your "aggressive schedule" claim you are referring to operating flight times that would be unappealing to your everyday Joe and business traveler. If my meeting wraps up at 3 and I catch a 5pm from JFK to get home that's unreasonable and aggressive? The airport is a joke plain and simple and would best fit your local regional carriers and regional flights.

Improving performance is not rocket science. Its only cost money.

How about things such as:

o Maintain spare aircraft and reserve crews on the West Coast.
o Isolate flying, so aircraft and crews don't need to flow across network such as waiting for East-coast inbounds
o No longer scheduled flights from markets like JFK and BOS into LGB within 30-mins of curfew.
o Publish more realistic block times in order to raise DOT A14 performance
o Adopt fuel/speed policy that places priority on ontime performance, not simply fuel conservation.

All are quite possible to achieve (how do you think UA has managed to rank #1 for 3 months running in DOT numbers now) They just take a true desire to improve the operation, and the willingness to fund such changes.

you were doing really good until you got to the last sentence.

The DOT actually measures and publishes quarterly on-time data in addition to each month.

UA is ranked 4th for the 2nd quarter of 2017 which is the most recent data they have published.

Whatever measure UA uses is fine but the industry standard and what the DOT measures is A14.

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... statcr.pdf

Your point is valid that UA has made a real improvement in its on-time and it shows.

but specific to LGB, WN still has a similar on-time as B6 but they manage to get their planes into LGB before the curfew.

The B6 people simply can't hide behind east coast problems when the data shows that B6' most delay-prone flights at LGB are those in the western US.

ScottB wrote:

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 this
http://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.

tphuang wrote:

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.

Yeah, actually, MDW and DAL are "better options" than AUS, FLL, or BOS -- precisely because more passengers travel between greater Los Angeles and either Chicago or Dallas/Ft. Worth than South Florida, Boston, or Austin. I don't argue that New York is a smaller market because it's not -- but MDW & DAL also offer convenient connections to the preferred NYC airport for domestic travel -- LGA. If the BOS/JFK/FLL/AUS flights stand on their own with respect to profitability (even in light of the new fine structure), B6 will continue to offer them. If not, then they won't.

tphuang wrote:

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.

Who in their right mind would fly through FLL to DXB/LON/CDG/BCN and/or Latin America when there are ample non-stop (not to mention less circuitous) options available to most markets at LAX?

tphuang wrote:

It's pretty sad for to try explain MDW and DAL are somehow more important than JFK/BOS/FLL/SEA/AUS.

It's not sad, it is simply fact that Chicago & Dallas/Ft. Worth are larger markets from greater L.A. than BOS, FLL, & AUS. Who's to say WN wouldn't fly LGB-SEA if B6 were to drop that -- after all, they dropped SNA-SEA because they lost slots at SNA.

tphuang wrote:

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.

They got "humiliated on the FIS decision?" Maybe you should consider toning down the drama? Perhaps JBLU management should have been more mindful of the long-standing community opposition to the airport and done a better job of motivating local residents to speak out for the project. In any event, I don't think an FIS at LGB would have fixed their problems there given the intensification of competition to Mexico from Southern California in the wake of the recent relaxation of the bilateral.

tphuang wrote:

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.

What am I desperate about? B6 needs to make the decision that works best for their business. But if they want to operate a focus city in greater L.A., LGB is still better than all their other options. LAX & BUR don't have enough gates to get to where they currently stand at LGB. SNA doesn't have enough slots available. ONT has plenty of room but yields would be even lower. SBD and PMD are LOL. An operation that splits among four L.A. area airports is pretty much about serving the preferences of customers outside the region who have a preference of which L.A. airport to use.

And FWIW BUR-JFK isn't higher-yielding than LGB-JFK.

nine4nine wrote:

Why would B6 have to overlap dominant WN markets at BUR? WN doesn't fly further than SLC. B6 can easily offer ORD, BOS, FLL, SEA, and reinforce JFK along with any other routes they deem necessary.

The issue is that once you get below the top 10 or so markets from the region, it gets more difficult to compete with service from the primary airport (LAX) unless you have the overall scale to offer a comparable schedule (being able to offer connections helps) or are willing to accept lower yields. Sure, they could fly BUR-SEA or BUR-ORD but they'd be just as uncompetitive as their offerings at LGB against what's available at LAX, and their gate resources at ORD probably have better uses. The dominant WN markets at BUR are most of the markets worth serving at BUR.

nine4nine wrote:

You mention the curfew? Yes BUR is voluntary curfew unlike LGB and yes fairly often the B6 inbound and turn to JFK runs late so that's basically a non issue and no fine there. I know a few nimbys who live at the end of rwy15 and they don't say much of the late departures or arrivals.

The NIMBYs around BUR are bad enough that the local politicians had to hold a referendum just to replace the existing terminal which is too close to the runway with a new one having the exact same number of gates -- no expansion at all. So you think the community would be just fine with B6 adding service and busting the curfew more often? LOL.

I love how you conveniently leave out JFK in every discussion every time I mention this. The point is that b6 provides certain destinations that no other airlines provide out of secondary airports in la basin. And these are to very large o&d markets out of la. They also fly to places out of lgb that wn would unlikely fly to out of lgb like Seattle and Austin. They also fly do two daily flights to JFK which is far frankly way more impressive than what any other airports outside of lax gets. You keep ignoring that. When are you going to admit that New York is important? on top of that there is no proof that southwest would even be willing to fly to Chicago out of lgb when it doesn't do that out of Burbank with far less slot constraints.

At this points, the additional flights out of lgb have been a disaster. The yields are horrible. Even aa can't get profitable flights to Phoenix out of there. Yet, you are convinced it's somehow higher yielding than Ontario and equal to Burbank. If lgb is such a goldmine then why is only delta and southwest looking to get in there?

I have clearly shown they can relocate 20+ flights to Burbank if they want to and also operate next to jetsuite. At this point, this is a much higher yielding option. It's just up to JetBlue whether they want to do this or just cut back and redeploy aircraft to other places. You can keep twisting my words but I clearly said cut down rather than vacate out of lgb.

There is nothin special about lgb that JetBlue has to stay there. There are costs in moving flights out and putting them in Burbank, but staying in lgb is getting less attractive everyday.

Just to be a smartass, I say B6 should just sell/give, whatever their slot to G4. HGR could use a Hagerstown to Burbank flight, completely skipping Nevada just to ensure that their MD83 or MD88 arrive an hour plus late once a week Sure, I know it's not practical or feasible, but it sure would be a dick thing to do to flip a middle finger up Long Beach.

tphuang wrote:

I love how you conveniently leave out JFK in every discussion every time I mention this. The point is that b6 provides certain destinations that no other airlines provide out of secondary airports in la basin. And these are to very large o&d markets out of la.

Except that B6 isn't really doing airports a favor by serving JFK or BOS. Those two airports are the airline's largest hubs/focus operations so one would expect most domestic markets to be connected to one or both where operationally feasible. WN also "provides certain destinations that no other airlines provide out of secondary airports in la basin." Ditto for DL, UA, AS, and AA.

tphuang wrote:

At this points, the additional flights out of lgb have been a disaster. The yields are horrible. Even aa can't get profitable flights to Phoenix out of there. Yet, you are convinced it's somehow higher yielding than Ontario and equal to Burbank. If lgb is such a goldmine then why is only delta and southwest looking to get in there?

If BUR "is such a goldmine" as you assert then why is there sufficient gate space for B6 to start the focus city you contend they ought to do? Remember that BUR-JFK yields are actually lower than LGB-JFK. Part of the reason why LGB is so poor for B6 is because they're competing indirectly with WN (at the other regional airports) in substantially all short-haul markets, not to mention WN/AA/DL/UA/AS/VX at LAX. Your contention is that they should pull down LGB (I don't disagree if they don't see a path to making money there) and move service to BUR. What markets should they serve from BUR, and why would they do any better if they're still indirectly competing with service at the other L.A. airports (not to mention directly competing with WN on pretty much every viable short-haul market for mainline-sized equipment)? How do they profitably get to 20+ flights as you suggest?

tphuang wrote:

I clearly said cut down rather than vacate out of lgb.

There is nothin special about lgb that JetBlue has to stay there. There are costs in moving flights out and putting them in Burbank, but staying in lgb is getting less attractive everyday.

I don't think I ever claimed you said they'd have to leave LGB -- the problem is that none of the other options end up being better than LGB unless they can make WN leave (from a secondary) or make a legacy give up gates at LAX. Dropping capacity into BUR will decrease yields there and they can't get big enough there to compete with WN directly or legacy service at LAX.

flyby519 wrote:

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.

I mean LGB should be extra nice to them. They don't seem to be recently when B6 does so much good in the community too! The NIMBYs don't realize how much B6 offers them, its a shame. B6 maybe needs to push some flights up a tad.

tphuang wrote:

There is nothin special about lgb that JetBlue has to stay there. There are costs in moving flights out and putting them in Burbank, but staying in lgb is getting less attractive everyday.

I mean there is nowhere to move to and still have that presence in so cal. B6 is staying, its more just a shame the city council knows this and is using them to get some extra funds. SNA doesnt have the space, BUR doesn't, LAX is ultra competitive and doesn't, ONT is way too far away.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

B6 is staying, its more just a shame the city council knows this and is using them to get some extra funds.

I don't think the City wants extra funds here. I think they've just increased the fines in an attempt to achieve greater compliance with the noise ordinance. If the fine goes high enough, it won't be worth it for B6 to continue violating -- although, of course, that may mean B6 reducing or ending service at LGB.

As discussed in the criminal complaint back in 2003 against B6, the consent decree settlement fine is meant solely to drive compliance as court perceived B6 to have "no reasonable basis for believing carrier would comply with the city's law otherwise."

The massive spike in violations this year, yet again confirm that the existing fines were not enough to deter B6, and as such the city is now reviewing other options including possibly adopting a policy whereby violations could lead to eventual loss of slot holding entirely.

Its really not that complex. The landlord has rules that need to be followed, while the tenant continues to thumb their nose at them.

LAXintl wrote:

As discussed in the criminal complaint back in 2003 against B6, the consent decree settlement fine is meant solely to drive compliance as court perceived B6 to have "no reasonable basis for believing carrier would comply with the city's law otherwise."

The massive spike in violations this year, yet again confirm that the existing fines were not enough to deter B6, and as such the city is now reviewing other options including possibly adopting a policy whereby violations could lead to eventual loss of slot holding entirely.

Its really not that complex. The landlord has rules that need to be followed, while the tenant continues to thumb their nose at them.

The landlord and its henchmen are nothing more than modern day gestapo. What better way to pump money into that dump of a city than to act like a traffic cop and bring in the revenue in any way possible. B6 should pack up and leave the headache to the next suitor. Before B6 every endeavor by a carrier to do something with LGB flopped. If the nimbys and city are so adamant about their stupid flight cap and noise then just raise it and throw in a bunch of condominiums and strip malls.

nine4nine wrote:

If the nimbys and city are so adamant about their stupid flight cap and noise then just raise it and throw in a bunch of condominiums and strip malls.

These are people's homes your talking about. Assuming you own one, how would you feel if the government told you one day that they're taking your house? I support eminent domain but your attitude towards it is just egregious.

airliner371 wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

If the nimbys and city are so adamant about their stupid flight cap and noise then just raise it and throw in a bunch of condominiums and strip malls.

These are people's homes your talking about. Assuming you own one, how would you feel if the government told you one day that they're taking your house? I support eminent domain but your attitude towards it is just egregious.

He's talking about the airport, not the nimby's homes.

At least one of the curfewed airports in Australia has a penalty of more than 10x LGB's, and still that isn't enough to reliably deter operators from breaching curfew, even for A320/B737 flights. I can't imagine $6,000 is much of a disincentive!

based on B6' average fares from LGB, a $6000 fine amounts to multiple dozens of passengers -nearly half an 320's capacity.

If a fine equal to nearly half the capacity of the aircraft isn't enough to stop a carrier from breaking the rules, then there is nothing economically that makes a difference.

And since we are talking about Southern California, this would be a good time for someone to spell out the noise restrictions for SNA.

ScottB wrote:

Except that B6 isn't really doing airports a favor by serving JFK or BOS. Those two airports are the airline's largest hubs/focus operations so one would expect most domestic markets to be connected to one or both where operationally feasible. WN also "provides certain destinations that no other airlines provide out of secondary airports in la basin." Ditto for DL, UA, AS, and AA.

There are no other airlines flying to JFK, BOS or south Beach out of non-LAX airports in LA basin. That's a fact. And these are all large O&D stations out of LAX. There are 14 to 17 flights a day from LAX to BOS and south Beach. LGB got this because of its status as B6 focus city. The best LGB can hope for out of WN is something like Burbank (which it has 50+ flights and LGB doesn't have that many slot). There are no cities in there that other airlines don't fly to out of secondary airports in LA basin. That's a fact. In fact out of the burbank list, the only one B6 doesn't already fly to is dallas, DEN and PHX. All 3 are adequately served by AA and UA even outside of secondary airports. Even AUS, which has 10 flights out of LAX, is only going to get served by frontier out of Ontario. If you don't want to fly ULCC, that's at least 4 destinations with 10 or more flights a day out of LAX that is only served by B6 amongst other LA basin airports.

So, why don't you actually look at the actual picture before you make comments like this?

If BUR "is such a goldmine" as you assert then why is there sufficient gate space for B6 to start the focus city you contend they ought to do? Remember that BUR-JFK yields are actually lower than LGB-JFK. Part of the reason why LGB is so poor for B6 is because they're competing indirectly with WN (at the other regional airports) in substantially all short-haul markets, not to mention WN/AA/DL/UA/AS/VX at LAX. Your contention is that they should pull down LGB (I don't disagree if they don't see a path to making money there) and move service to BUR. What markets should they serve from BUR, and why would they do any better if they're still indirectly competing with service at the other L.A. airports (not to mention directly competing with WN on pretty much every viable short-haul market for mainline-sized equipment)? How do they profitably get to 20+ flights as you suggest?

I don't think I ever claimed you said they'd have to leave LGB -- the problem is that none of the other options end up being better than LGB unless they can make WN leave (from a secondary) or make a legacy give up gates at LAX. Dropping capacity into BUR will decrease yields there and they can't get big enough there to compete with WN directly or legacy service at LAX.

So let's look at the facts.
LGB - served by DL, WN, B6 now that AA is leaving and no other airline even contested for slots that AA was vacating or the 9 slots that became available last year
ONT - Served by AM, AS, AA, DL, F9, WN, UA and Y4
BUR - served by AS, AA, DL, B6, Jetsuite, WN and UA
SNA - obviously the highest yielding of the 4
So, LGB is so high yielding that both ONT and BUR attracts more airlines.
One red eye flight out of BUR to JFK is not a good comparison vs what B6 might get out of 20+ flights out of BUR with non red-eye transcon options.
The airport they fly to out of LGB currently not served at BUR by other airlines
JFK, BOS, FLL, AUS, RNO
And then you add flights to Bay Area, LAS, SMF, SLC, where they would have to battle WN/DL even if they stay at LGB, that's 20+ flights pretty easily.
Down size LGB to 4 flights to SFO, 4 flights to LAS, odd flight to SEA and PDX.

And they are really profitable at LAX with the flights they have. They don't really need to change until they get more gates. Remember, LAX and BUR are the closest to the high yielding corporate and hollywood crowd. That's a benefit of BUR over LGB.

tphuang wrote:

LGB - served by DL, WN, B6 now that AA is leaving

AA is leaving LGB?

tphuang wrote:

So let's look at the facts.
LGB - ...and no other airline even contested for slots that AA was vacating or the 9 slots that became available last year

Correct me if I'm wrong but we don't actually know this for sure. WN could have been gunning for all 9 slots but only received 4, and it seems likely that this was the case. And how do we know B6 wasn't trying to grab those 2 AA slots that WN would eventually receive? We're simply not privy to these discussions at LGB about slot requests.

nine4nine wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

As discussed in the criminal complaint back in 2003 against B6, the consent decree settlement fine is meant solely to drive compliance as court perceived B6 to have "no reasonable basis for believing carrier would comply with the city's law otherwise."

The massive spike in violations this year, yet again confirm that the existing fines were not enough to deter B6, and as such the city is now reviewing other options including possibly adopting a policy whereby violations could lead to eventual loss of slot holding entirely.

Its really not that complex. The landlord has rules that need to be followed, while the tenant continues to thumb their nose at them.

The landlord and its henchmen are nothing more than modern day gestapo. What better way to pump money into that dump of a city than to act like a traffic cop and bring in the revenue in any way possible. B6 should pack up and leave the headache to the next suitor. Before B6 every endeavor by a carrier to do something with LGB flopped. If the nimbys and city are so adamant about their stupid flight cap and noise then just raise it and throw in a bunch of condominiums and strip malls.

B6 is being disrespectful to the people of Long Beach who have steadfastly made it clear that they don't want the noise. It's not really anything about B6 - it's about the people's wishes. In fact, there's probably a case to be made for the increased fines actually doing B6 a favor, as if they continued on this path they likely could stand to lose more in the future. Goodwill, slots, even worse fines - this is a shot across the bow.

atl100million wrote:

based on B6' average fares from LGB, a $6000 fine amounts to multiple dozens of passengers -nearly half an 320's capacity.

If a fine equal to nearly half the capacity of the aircraft isn't enough to stop a carrier from breaking the rules, then there is nothing economically that makes a difference.

That's because a $6,000 fine, compared to the costs of diverting or cancelling a flight (including, but not limited to, accommodation and meals for passengers and crew, compensation for missed connections, repositioning and recrewing the aircraft, etc.), is virtually spare change to airlines like B6. To be brutally honest, an airline probably views a $6,000 fine as being an insurance policy covering them against all those other costs.

MrBretz wrote:

PItingres, you haven't lived in OC very long. The El Toro base has a long history. And if it were being used, Aliso Viejo is directly in the flight path. Since we are neighbors, I am happy it never happened. Study the history. The rich people in Newport wanted their historical NIMBY problem moved to make it someone else's problem. They lost.

I have flown into ONT maybe twice in my life. SNA, LGB, or LAX are a much better alternative. BUR is out of the question for South OC folks.

The NIMBY's in Laguna Beach didn't want El Toro Int'l so the wasted park it is! From South OC it can be easier to go to SAN then to go to LAX let alone BUR. The usual is SNA and the rare occassion is LGB but that can be an hour plus at certain times of day.

Ds8, I don't know where you live but the Newport Beach crowd wanted to move their NIMBY problem to other parts of the county. They probably had a valid complaint. Until the mid 60s, SNA was a GA airport. Then it started to grow in the late 1960's to its current departure rate with jets. So you had departures over expensive real estate. So about 25 years ago, the ultra rich in Newport Beach wanted to move the airport to the El Toro Marine base which was closing. They wanted to move their noise problem somewhere else. They lost. It is a done deal. That would have been a great airport except for the noise over South County and over places near Orange and around there. It's done. Forget it. And since I would have lived it in the landing flight path, I am glad the super rich didn't give me their problem. And, I might add, my mom and sister would have lived in the departure path..

airliner371 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

LGB - served by DL, WN, B6 now that AA is leaving

AA is leaving LGB?

tphuang wrote:

So let's look at the facts.
LGB - ...and no other airline even contested for slots that AA was vacating or the 9 slots that became available last year

Correct me if I'm wrong but we don't actually know this for sure. WN could have been gunning for all 9 slots but only received 4, and it seems likely that this was the case. And how do we know B6 wasn't trying to grab those 2 AA slots that WN would eventually receive? We're simply not privy to these discussions at LGB about slot requests.

You may have misunderstood my post. I was saying no airline outside of b6 wn and dl contested for all the recent slot allocation. So those are the only airlines intending to operate out of lgb.

MrBretz wrote:

And since I would have lived it in the landing flight path, I am glad the super rich didn't give me their problem. And, I might add, my mom and sister would have lived in the departure path..

Except you folks did luck out as there ain't nothing noisier than a military air base. So your problem was given to other folks in the country, though that choice was made by the BRAC commissions.

Commercial aviation is much quieter.

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.

What does JetsuiteX operating out of Burbank have to do with jetBlue?

DeltaB717 wrote:

atl100million wrote:

based on B6' average fares from LGB, a $6000 fine amounts to multiple dozens of passengers -nearly half an 320's capacity.

If a fine equal to nearly half the capacity of the aircraft isn't enough to stop a carrier from breaking the rules, then there is nothing economically that makes a difference.

That's because a $6,000 fine, compared to the costs of diverting or cancelling a flight (including, but not limited to, accommodation and meals for passengers and crew, compensation for missed connections, repositioning and recrewing the aircraft, etc.), is virtually spare change to airlines like B6. To be brutally honest, an airline probably views a $6,000 fine as being an insurance policy covering them against all those other costs.

It is a cost that other airlines including DL (or OO) and WN don't have to pay to anywhere near the same degree as B6.

The obvious answer to eliminate the fine is to operate more close to their schedule and to move their LGB arrivals further from the curfew. It is not simply spare change if B6 or any carrier has to keep paying the same fine over and over again on the same flight and the fine amounts to as much as half of the revenue they can carry out of B6 for that late flight.

Other carriers figure out how to operate from highly delay prone and noise restricted airports. There is nothing about B6 or LGB that makes it any less possible - they just have to decide they are tired of paying fines. It might well mean they can't fly as many flights with the same airplanes but that is the cost of flying into ANY airport that doesn't allow 24 hour operations.

Welcome to liberal America. Where you can knowingly buy a home under a flight path or in the vicinity of the airport, one especially that's been there since 1919. The second you get your keys to your new home, you protest the noise and join a local movement of fascists to squash the airport. The airline gets fined, the prices go up to offset the fines so the airline can maintain a profit, the rest of the paying public eats the fines when they pay for the ticket, the city collects the fine and dishes some out amongst the city council in bonuses, the rest goes wasted on some ridiculous sculpture that gets put into a city park. But....when the nimby or that council member goes to Vegas for the weekend or takes the family to S Florida or NYC for a vacay they sure have no problem booking a flight from the airport they so despise.

Solutions
- tear down LGB, build condos and more strip malls. Everybody loses.

- move B6 ops and split the assets and flights throughout other so cal airports (lax,bur,San) and tell LGB to go kick rocks.

- leave it be and run ops the way they are. Accept the fines but have every local nimby and every city politician who sides with them against airport ops (and there are a few) sign an official document that puts them on a no fly list from LGB. They can all drive to LAX or SNA. If you are staunchly against the airport you should not be entitled to use it.

For now B6 regrets deeply that WN came out of nowhere and grabbed the underused temp slots and newly created slots, because it made the corner they are painted into even smaller and less profitable. They are going to defend their "turf" even if it continues to cost them and hope for better days.

The solution at LGB (and elsewhere , where the operation has been hell on earth for the last few months) is put more slack in the system. There are a few people at b6 that love how much airtime the jets get, if it was up to them all turns would be 15 mins, crews would work 16 hours a day every day, and the planes would never land.

Speaking of LGB curfew, does everyone remember the story a few years back about the captain who refused to do a tech stop to empty full lavatories because he wanted to make curfew in LGB? The FAs were reduced to emptying out lavatories BY HAND with plastic bags, cups, and rubber gloves. (to be fair I think the FAs volunteered to do this, but I'm sure they felt pressured since everyone "had to make the LGB curfew"). When the plane landed in LGB the now heavy with urine/feces lavatory trash cans burst out from under the sinks and flowed everywhere. So yes, I'm sure B6 does not want to flaunt curfew, but it wants its planes and crews constantly flying more.

Oh and JetBlue has already put in for slots at orange county. They will just continue their slow steady creep through the LA basin with a eagle eye on LAX. I'm kind of surprised they dont have a token presence at Ontario again. I guess the planes are better off elsewhere.

tphuang wrote:

There are no other airlines flying to JFK, BOS or south Beach out of non-LAX airports in LA basin.

So? NYC is very well-served from SNA by UA's three daily flights to EWR -- the same number of flights to NYC that B6 offers from non-LAX airports in greater Los Angeles! BOS and MIA/FLL/PBI are the 14th- and 15th-largest domestic markets from metropolitan L.A.; less-sexy regional markets like PHX, SMF, and DEN are more important to local passengers. Dallas, Houston, and Chicago are all larger markets from the L.A. Basin than BOS or FLL and WN serves all three markets non-stop from greater L.A. airports other than LAX. AS serves both of SEA & PDX (both larger markets to L.A. than BOS or MIA/FLL/PBI) from each of BUR, ONT, and SNA.

tphuang wrote:

If you don't want to fly ULCC, that's at least 4 destinations with 10 or more flights a day out of LAX that is only served by B6 amongst other LA basin airports.

But again, so what? We're talking about a half-dozen flights in total and NYC, BOS & FLL are hubs (whether or not they choose to call them that) for B6. Only DL serves ATL from any airport in the region other than LAX; are they also special because of that?

tphuang wrote:

LGB - served by DL, WN, B6 now that AA is leaving

AA isn't leaving.

tphuang wrote:

So, LGB is so high yielding that both ONT and BUR attracts more airlines.

The number of airlines isn't indicative of yield. DAL has fewer airlines than LGB and yet no one is suggesting the dominant carrier there is unhappy with yields. And the statistics speak for themselves: LGB-JFK yields are higher than BUR-JFK yields, even in spite of there being twice as much capacity in the former market. In order to have a focus city which would be relevant to passengers from BUR, B6 would have to serve the largest markets from BUR -- but WN and other carriers already serve most of these.

tphuang wrote:

The airport they fly to out of LGB currently not served at BUR by other airlines
JFK, BOS, FLL, AUS, RNO
And then you add flights to Bay Area, LAS, SMF, SLC, where they would have to battle WN/DL even if they stay at LGB, that's 20+ flights pretty easily.

The issue ends up being that they'd be at an even worse disadvantage to WN, DL, & UA if they were to try to serve SFO, OAK, SJC, SMF, LAS, and SLC from BUR. Let's even assume they can get to 25 daily flights at BUR with one dedicated gate and borrowing time on others. Roughly 5 of those flights would be to JFK/BOS/AUS/FLL, leaving 20 to split among the short-haul markets. Let's say they only choose to serve SFO, SJC, SMF, LAS, and SLC then. That's an average of four flights to each. How would four daily flights fare up against WN's nine to SJC? Or WN's ten to LAS?

Do you think the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority will be eager to work with B6 given the airline's track record of busting the LGB airport curfew? I sure don't. If they can't be a good neighbor in Long Beach, why would they be better in Burbank? Do you honestly think Southern California NIMBYs are going to ignore a spike in late-night departures and arrivals?

nine4nine wrote:

The landlord and its henchmen are nothing more than modern day gestapo. What better way to pump money into that dump of a city than to act like a traffic cop and bring in the revenue in any way possible.

Or... maybe B6 should just fix its scheduling so they don't break the curfew a dozen or more times a month.

CobaltScar wrote:

Oh and JetBlue has already put in for slots at orange county.

If they can't manage to get into LGB before curfew, the problem will be worse at SNA. There's a hard curfew at 11 PM (although the airport may approve an extension to 11:15 on a case-by-case basis) so if they're running late they'll have to divert, not just pay a fine.

Newark and JFK aren't the same thing. And southwest definitely are not getting you anywhere close to New York. And as for delta serving atl, yes that makes that flight special because no other airlines flies there out of secondary la airport. You continue to ignore that wn offers absolutely no destination that other airlines don't serve whereas JetBlue offers many. If lgb is happy about only flying inside California and to Las Vegas, then it doesn't need JetBlue. But if people of Long Beach want to get to east coast or Austin or one hop to Europe and South America without putting up with lax, then it will loose out if JetBlue cuts those flights.

And yes, aa is Leaving. There was a thread about wn getting its slots which you obviously missed.

Many airlines are trying to get into dal and can't get there because wn and as are not giving that up and there is also wrights amendment restrictions. Anyone could have applied for those lgb slots and only 3 airlines are interested. Much fewer than in Burbank or Ontario. Dal gates are among the most valuable assets domestically and you compare that to lgb access. This is quite hilarious. Did anyone even have 5 daily flights at lgb before JetBlue set up ther shop there?

3 flights to JFK, 1 each to bos fll and rno. 2 to Austin, that's already 8 flights. Another 12 to sfo and Las Vegas and Smf. If they want they can move those slc flights to Burbank also. Leave 4 flights to sjc and 4 to Las in addition to Seattle and Portland at lgb.
They already battle wn frequencies on all thos flights out of lgb and get very low yields. Have you honestly looked at some of b6 fares out of lgb? At least they won't get fined out of Burbank. As for noise complaints, fewer flights throughout the day means fewer flights that Would be scheduled at end of day. JetBlue certainly did not have this kind of problem at lgb when it was doing 25 flights a day. You just can't seem to accept that JetBlue vast variety of destinations bring benefits to an airport and that it doesn't need lgb to have a similar sized operation in la basin.

tphuang wrote:

And yes, aa is Leaving. There was a thread about wn getting its slots which you obviously missed.

AA has not made any such announcement. AA returned 2 slots back in March. They continue to utilize their remaining slot allocation.

LAXintl wrote:

tphuang wrote:

And yes, aa is Leaving. There was a thread about wn getting its slots which you obviously missed.

AA has not made any such announcement. AA returned 2 slots back in March. They continue to utilize their remaining slot allocation.

My bad on that one. Make that 4 airlines serving lgb and no new one looking to get in.

At most airlines flying routes in/out of restricted airports, the rule HAS to be that flights to LGB/SNA/HPN ALWAYS leave on time. Often, it invovles swapping aircraft. One time, WN "stole" our airplane to send it to SNA to get there before the curfew. My flight to SEA ended being delayed for 1.5 hours, waiting for the very late aircraft that was originally supposed to go to SNA.

When I worked at AA, the DFW-SNA flight ALWAYS left on-time. If there was only one aircraft on the ground at DFW, that aircraft would go to SNA. So, it sounds like B6 has not adopted a similar policy.

What other airports impose an actual curfew rather than a latest/earliest limit on schedules? I have arrived at 2am rather than 11pm on certain flights... beats a night on the floor.

formeraa wrote:

At most airlines flying routes in/out of restricted airports, the rule HAS to be that flights to LGB/SNA/HPN ALWAYS leave on time. Often, it invovles swapping aircraft. One time, WN "stole" our airplane to send it to SNA to get there before the curfew. My flight to SEA ended being delayed for 1.5 hours, waiting for the very late aircraft that was originally supposed to go to SNA.

When I worked at AA, the DFW-SNA flight ALWAYS left on-time. If there was only one aircraft on the ground at DFW, that aircraft would go to SNA. So, it sounds like B6 has not adopted a similar policy.

The difference is LGB had a small reasonable sized fine only for being late. Was still worth it to keep things as is. With that fine doubling we may need to see them make changes. SNA i think they block you and make you land at LAX, so the airlines have to get those out.

ScottB wrote:

tphuang wrote:

There are no other airlines flying to JFK, BOS or south Beach out of non-LAX airports in LA basin.

So? NYC is very well-served from SNA by UA's three daily flights to EWR -- the same number of flights to NYC that B6 offers from non-LAX airports in greater Los Angeles! BOS and MIA/FLL/PBI are the 14th- and 15th-largest domestic markets from metropolitan L.A.; less-sexy regional markets like PHX, SMF, and DEN are more important to local passengers. Dallas, Houston, and Chicago are all larger markets from the L.A. Basin than BOS or FLL and WN serves all three markets non-stop from greater L.A. airports other than LAX. AS serves both of SEA & PDX (both larger markets to L.A. than BOS or MIA/FLL/PBI) from each of BUR, ONT, and SNA.

tphuang wrote:

If you don't want to fly ULCC, that's at least 4 destinations with 10 or more flights a day out of LAX that is only served by B6 amongst other LA basin airports.

But again, so what? We're talking about a half-dozen flights in total and NYC, BOS & FLL are hubs (whether or not they choose to call them that) for B6. Only DL serves ATL from any airport in the region other than LAX; are they also special because of that?

tphuang wrote:

LGB - served by DL, WN, B6 now that AA is leaving

AA isn't leaving.

tphuang wrote:

So, LGB is so high yielding that both ONT and BUR attracts more airlines.

The number of airlines isn't indicative of yield. DAL has fewer airlines than LGB and yet no one is suggesting the dominant carrier there is unhappy with yields. And the statistics speak for themselves: LGB-JFK yields are higher than BUR-JFK yields, even in spite of there being twice as much capacity in the former market. In order to have a focus city which would be relevant to passengers from BUR, B6 would have to serve the largest markets from BUR -- but WN and other carriers already serve most of these.

tphuang wrote:

The airport they fly to out of LGB currently not served at BUR by other airlines
JFK, BOS, FLL, AUS, RNO
And then you add flights to Bay Area, LAS, SMF, SLC, where they would have to battle WN/DL even if they stay at LGB, that's 20+ flights pretty easily.

The issue ends up being that they'd be at an even worse disadvantage to WN, DL, & UA if they were to try to serve SFO, OAK, SJC, SMF, LAS, and SLC from BUR. Let's even assume they can get to 25 daily flights at BUR with one dedicated gate and borrowing time on others. Roughly 5 of those flights would be to JFK/BOS/AUS/FLL, leaving 20 to split among the short-haul markets. Let's say they only choose to serve SFO, SJC, SMF, LAS, and SLC then. That's an average of four flights to each. How would four daily flights fare up against WN's nine to SJC? Or WN's ten to LAS?

Do you think the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority will be eager to work with B6 given the airline's track record of busting the LGB airport curfew? I sure don't. If they can't be a good neighbor in Long Beach, why would they be better in Burbank? Do you honestly think Southern California NIMBYs are going to ignore a spike in late-night departures and arrivals?

nine4nine wrote:

The landlord and its henchmen are nothing more than modern day gestapo. What better way to pump money into that dump of a city than to act like a traffic cop and bring in the revenue in any way possible.

Or... maybe B6 should just fix its scheduling so they don't break the curfew a dozen or more times a month.

CobaltScar wrote:

Oh and JetBlue has already put in for slots at orange county.

If they can't manage to get into LGB before curfew, the problem will be worse at SNA. There's a hard curfew at 11 PM (although the airport may approve an extension to 11:15 on a case-by-case basis) so if they're running late they'll have to divert, not just pay a fine.

Why would B6 and WN have to compete on the same oversatuated regional routes out of BUR? B6 offers many more routes that run west of the Rockies that can be utilized. It doesn't have to be the same SMF,LAS,OAK routes to comets with WN. The only reason they run most of those routes on higher frequency out of LGB is to not lose slots.


does anyone here have performance statistics on the 8:45pm arrival into BUR and 9:45pm turn to JFK?

nine4nine wrote:

Why would B6 and WN have to compete on the same oversatuated regional routes out of BUR? B6 offers many more routes that run west of the Rockies that can be utilized. It doesn't have to be the same SMF,LAS,OAK routes to comets with WN. The only reason they run most of those routes on higher frequency out of LGB is to not lose slots.

They don't have to compete on the same routes, but if you want to operate a "focus city" you need to serve the popular markets from that airport. WN serves six of the top 10 L.A.-region O&D markets non-stop from BUR, so chances are they'd end up competing with them (or AS, UA, or AA) if they put a focus city at BUR.

tphuang wrote:

You continue to ignore that wn offers absolutely no destination that other airlines don't serve whereas JetBlue offers many.

I guess that makes WN happy to compete with other carriers! The difference is that WN's service is more useful for a broader segment of the population (i.e. more service to more popular markets), which might help explain why they're more successful in Southern California.

tphuang wrote:

3 flights to JFK, 1 each to bos fll and rno. 2 to Austin, that's already 8 flights. Another 12 to sfo and Las Vegas and Smf.

They will get killed to SFO/LAS/SMF at BUR just as they do now at LGB because they will offer inadequate frequency to be competitive with WN & UA. The market to AUS won't profitably support two daily flights outside of April.

tphuang wrote:

JetBlue certainly did not have this kind of problem at lgb when it was doing 25 flights a day.

Yields at LGB were trash even when B6 only had about 25 daily flights. WN's entry into LGB-OAK depressed yields in the LGB-SFO & LGB-OAK airport pairs by under 10%. LGB-JFK is actually up year-over-year.