Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
LAXintl wrote:
Personally, I think they made a fatal mistake of not including a reference to either Los Angeles or Southern California in the branding. This is the opposite path Burbank recently took which discovered many outside of SoCal had no clue where to the airport was and decided to incorporate "Hollywood" into the airports updated branding.
LAXintl wrote:Per the airport authority, it seeks to market the airport as “Southern California’s preferred alternate airport.”
mercure1 wrote:What is Ontario? Some place in Canada??
I doubt many even in the United States have clue where the airport is.
Like many secondary airports, they should play on the name of their mega city neighbor - Los Angeles.
Let the global awareness of Los Angeles help with free advertising, instead of trying to market an unknown and nondescript Ontario brand from scratch. Epic fail.
spokemd wrote:Didn't BWI Airport use something like Easy Come, Easy Go before?
LAXintl wrote:Personally, I think they made a fatal mistake of not including a reference to either Los Angeles or Southern California in the branding. This is the opposite path Burbank recently took which discovered many outside of SoCal had no clue where to the airport was and decided to incorporate "Hollywood" into the airports updated branding.
WPvsMW wrote:"Southern California International" would have been better. To 95+% of North Americans, "Ontario" means the Province of Canada. I have no data to support my percentage, just my experience in marketing, brand recognition, and trademark strategy. You never fight an entrenched, indelible brand. Even Ontario CA is ambiguous. The denizens of that California city should consider renaming the city... something like, "Chicago, Californa", or "Boston, California" [/humor]... but those examples illustrate the problem.
LAXintl wrote:In a move to establish its own identity, the Ontario International Airport will launch a marketing campaign in the fall aimed at attracting travelers.
As part of the move, the airport this week unveiled a two logos and three marketing tag lines.of:
o “So Cal. So Easy.”
o ‘Easy come. Easy go.’
o ‘Where the flying is easy.’
=
Per the airport authority, it seeks to market the airport as “Southern California’s preferred alternate airport.”
Personally, I think they made a fatal mistake of not including a reference to either Los Angeles or Southern California in the branding. This is the opposite path Burbank recently took which discovered many outside of SoCal had no clue where to the airport was and decided to incorporate "Hollywood" into the airports updated branding.
FX1816 wrote:LAXintl wrote:Personally, I think they made a fatal mistake of not including a reference to either Los Angeles or Southern California in the branding. This is the opposite path Burbank recently took which discovered many outside of SoCal had no clue where to the airport was and decided to incorporate "Hollywood" into the airports updated branding.
Fatal mistake, being a little over dramatic are we? The LA/Ontario name, officially, is not that old. It had been known as Ontario International Airport for much longer, even during the peak years up to 2007. Passenger count is up nearly 7% over this time last year and I'll just bet not all of them are flying in to ONT because it had been called LA/Ontario Airport. Look I get that you're an LAX "homer" but this hatred you have towards ONT is absolutely ridiculous. ONT is never going to compete with LAX and never has, however if ONT sees an increase in passenger count that is hardly going to put a dent in to LAX. I've grown up spending my time at ONT since 1984 when my dad started working there and I've worked there since 1998, the past three years as an air traffic controller so I'm biased. I'm also a realist and know that ONT won't be much larger, passenger wise, than it was during the peak years 2005-2007 but LAX can only grow so much, they have NO extra land they can build on and only so many airplanes can be on the ground at once.
n471wn wrote:For you nay-Sayers let me REMIND you that OAK and SJC were once like ONT and you should see them now with scores of international flights as people love the alternative to SFO
jonair8 wrote:The market of Los Angeles is not in Ontario. The market of Ontario is not in Los Angeles. Apples to oranges. People who use ONT do so mainly to get to the Inland Empire, the Victorville surrounding area, east toward Palm Springs, and even south toward Temecula. The people who use LAX do so to get to the business center of LAX, the beaches, and and to a lesser extent, the San Fernando valley and Orange County. Even the culture of Los Angeles proper is different than the culture of the Inland Empire. So no, there is not a "fatal mistake" in not including LA into the Ontario name. It's been done before, and didn't really do much in the last years of LAWA's running of the airport in terms of passenger count is concerned.
Seabear wrote:WPvsMW wrote:"Southern California International" would have been better. To 95+% of North Americans, "Ontario" means the Province of Canada. I have no data to support my percentage, just my experience in marketing, brand recognition, and trademark strategy. You never fight an entrenched, indelible brand. Even Ontario CA is ambiguous. The denizens of that California city should consider renaming the city... something like, "Chicago, Californa", or "Boston, California" [/humor]... but those examples illustrate the problem.
No, I suspect that most Americans couldn't find Canada on a map, let alone the Province of Ontario.
AAlaxfan wrote:Add to that market the people of eastern LA and north Orange counties. These are the people that don't want to cross the LA basin to get to LAX. For them a flight out of ONT would be the better choice if frequency and price were close. I've lived in this area for the past 46 years and have flown out of LAX, ONT, & LGB and would much rather go to ONT than the other 2.
ldvaviation wrote:AAlaxfan wrote:Add to that market the people of eastern LA and north Orange counties. These are the people that don't want to cross the LA basin to get to LAX. For them a flight out of ONT would be the better choice if frequency and price were close. I've lived in this area for the past 46 years and have flown out of LAX, ONT, & LGB and would much rather go to ONT than the other 2.
That's quite a generalization. At least from the western part of North OC, there are more freeways to and from LAX than to and from ONT.
UALFAson wrote:While I agree with your commentary, at some point the airport authority has to accept that they're stuck trying to put lipstick on a pig. As a former Angeleno, I can't see ONT ever becoming a viable alternative for leisure travelers heading tino SoCal tourist attractions due to its distance and commute time in traffic. I think they would be better off marketing to local folks in San Bernardino, Riverside, and along the I-15 corridor to consider ONT as an alternative to LAX, SNA, or SAN.
usflyer msp wrote:n471wn wrote:For you nay-Sayers let me REMIND you that OAK and SJC were once like ONT and you should see them now with scores of international flights as people love the alternative to SFO
Apples and Oranges...
SJC is close to the much of the Bay Area's wealth and tech corporations.
OAK has extensive LCC operations and public transit to SF.
Both of the are much closer to balance of the Bay Area's population.
ONT has nothing around it except alot of middle and low-income people that moved from LA because it was too expensive (and meth).
If ONT was in NorCal it would be the equivalent of Stockton SCK not OAK or SJC...
BGS91762 wrote:usflyer msp wrote:n471wn wrote:For you nay-Sayers let me REMIND you that OAK and SJC were once like ONT and you should see them now with scores of international flights as people love the alternative to SFO
Apples and Oranges...
SJC is close to the much of the Bay Area's wealth and tech corporations.
OAK has extensive LCC operations and public transit to SF.
Both of the are much closer to balance of the Bay Area's population.
ONT has nothing around it except alot of middle and low-income people that moved from LA because it was too expensive (and meth).
If ONT was in NorCal it would be the equivalent of Stockton SCK not OAK or SJC...
Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.
32andBelow wrote:BGS91762 wrote:usflyer msp wrote:
Apples and Oranges...
SJC is close to the much of the Bay Area's wealth and tech corporations.
OAK has extensive LCC operations and public transit to SF.
Both of the are much closer to balance of the Bay Area's population.
ONT has nothing around it except alot of middle and low-income people that moved from LA because it was too expensive (and meth).
If ONT was in NorCal it would be the equivalent of Stockton SCK not OAK or SJC...
Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.
But you still haven't explained why anyone in LA would land further from their destination when they don't have to. LAX has some of the cheapest fair in the country.
BGS91762 wrote:32andBelow wrote:BGS91762 wrote:Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.
But you still haven't explained why anyone in LA would land further from their destination when they don't have to. LAX has some of the cheapest fair in the country.
Not sure why this is so hard to explain. I agree if you are going to the main tourist areas of LA then LAX is a great choice. But for millions of people in So Cal Ontario is closer and more convenient. ONT will never be an LAX, as there are very few airports in the world that can compete with the variety of airlines and flight. However, it can be a great airport for the eastern part of LA and the I.E. and should do fine with all the growth occurring to the east of LA.
n471wn wrote:For you nay-Sayers let me REMIND you that OAK and SJC were once like ONT and you should see them now with scores of international flights as people love the alternative to SFO
BGS91762 wrote:usflyer msp wrote:n471wn wrote:For you nay-Sayers let me REMIND you that OAK and SJC were once like ONT and you should see them now with scores of international flights as people love the alternative to SFO
Apples and Oranges...
SJC is close to the much of the Bay Area's wealth and tech corporations.
OAK has extensive LCC operations and public transit to SF.
Both of the are much closer to balance of the Bay Area's population.
ONT has nothing around it except alot of middle and low-income people that moved from LA because it was too expensive (and meth).
If ONT was in NorCal it would be the equivalent of Stockton SCK not OAK or SJC...
Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.
usflyer msp wrote:BGS91762 wrote:32andBelow wrote:But you still haven't explained why anyone in LA would land further from their destination when they don't have to. LAX has some of the cheapest fair in the country.
Not sure why this is so hard to explain. I agree if you are going to the main tourist areas of LA then LAX is a great choice. But for millions of people in So Cal Ontario is closer and more convenient. ONT will never be an LAX, as there are very few airports in the world that can compete with the variety of airlines and flight. However, it can be a great airport for the eastern part of LA and the I.E. and should do fine with all the growth occurring to the east of LA.
The local IE traffic is what ONT is currently getting. ONT fans keep longing for the early 2000's glory days of ONT but refuse to acknowledge that much of that growth was driven by residents from outside of it's natural catchment area travelling from ONT because of unsustainably low airfares which are not coming back...
dc10lover wrote:n471wn wrote:For you nay-Sayers let me REMIND you that OAK and SJC were once like ONT and you should see them now with scores of international flights as people love the alternative to SFO
This is a good point, actually.
usflyer msp wrote:BGS91762 wrote:usflyer msp wrote:
Apples and Oranges...
SJC is close to the much of the Bay Area's wealth and tech corporations.
OAK has extensive LCC operations and public transit to SF.
Both of the are much closer to balance of the Bay Area's population.
ONT has nothing around it except alot of middle and low-income people that moved from LA because it was too expensive (and meth).
If ONT was in NorCal it would be the equivalent of Stockton SCK not OAK or SJC...
Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.
Not really. Stockton maybe slight farther but the demographics are pretty similar....
32andBelow wrote:BGS91762 wrote:usflyer msp wrote:
Apples and Oranges...
SJC is close to the much of the Bay Area's wealth and tech corporations.
OAK has extensive LCC operations and public transit to SF.
Both of the are much closer to balance of the Bay Area's population.
ONT has nothing around it except alot of middle and low-income people that moved from LA because it was too expensive (and meth).
If ONT was in NorCal it would be the equivalent of Stockton SCK not OAK or SJC...
Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.
But you still haven't explained why anyone in LA would land further from their destination when they don't have to. LAX has some of the cheapest fair in the country.
UALFAson wrote:While I agree with your commentary, at some point the airport authority has to accept that they're stuck trying to put lipstick on a pig. As a former Angeleno, I can't see ONT ever becoming a viable alternative for leisure travelers heading to SoCal tourist attractions due to its distance and commute time in traffic. I think they would be better off marketing to local folks in San Bernardino, Riverside, and along the I-15 corridor to consider ONT as an alternative to LAX, SNA, or SAN.
BGS91762 wrote:usflyer msp wrote:BGS91762 wrote:Talk about generalizing! There is much industry in the area and many areas of wealth. Also, its mot that far from LA/OC. It's 38 miles from LA not 83 miles like Stockton is from SF. Maps may help in getting the geography correct.
Not really. Stockton maybe slight farther but the demographics are pretty similar....
Demographics are not even close. I've worked in Stockton. Also not so densely populated as the IE, East LA County areas.
usflyer msp wrote:BGS91762 wrote:usflyer msp wrote:
Not really. Stockton maybe slight farther but the demographics are pretty similar....
Demographics are not even close. I've worked in Stockton. Also not so densely populated as the IE, East LA County areas.
Fewer people - yes.
Very similar types of people however.
a) lower income people in service industry jobs
b) middle income people priced out owning in closer in areas. They spend an absurd percentage of their income on housing and transportation - not much left for leisure travel. They don't travel for work.
32andBelow wrote:Most people flying into LA want to go west or north or LA so you'll wind up driving past LAX, LBG, SNA, and BUR on your way to your final destination.
What is Ontario? Some place in Canada??
I doubt many even in the United States have clue where the airport is.
Like many secondary airports, they should play on the name of their mega city neighbor - Los Angeles.
she was shocked to learn how many commercial options were available. For years she could have flow into SNA, ONT, BUR, LGB and bypassed the traffic mess in, out, and around LAX
mtnwest1979 wrote:I liked ONT back in the old terminal days. Walking up rear stairs of a PSA 727 was great.
And chances are they are not marketing themselves to everyone in America, so it doesn't really matter if Joe Blow in Syracuse doesn't know where it is. Marketing is done for the local folks. Have you seen any Hollywood/Burbank Airport ads anywhere other than SoCal?
I believe the Ontario Airport folks are happy to concentrate their ads to local ( East of LA) area. Later they can address the rest of the traveling world.
"Flying to Southern California? D'ONT use LAX, use ONTario!"