JetBlue Network Thread 2018

jfklganyc · Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:21 am

727LOVER wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
evank516 wrote:

Doesn't matter, SRQ made the cut.

For now...

I was having a great Nelson HA HA day until I read THAT. If you know something......speak up !

Someone posted 6-8 cities cut a few weeks ago (less than that this time)

Someone leaked a list from a manager. (not all were cut)

JetBlue publicly said more daylight transcons (which are not included this time around)

Im putting those pieces together...I
believe they are not done yet.

I believe every city on that list should keep
an eye on the ball (if that list is true)

I believe every city with 1 daily flight (except
international stuff) is on the chopping block...especially ABQ and RNO.

I believe every secondary city with a nearby B6 major city is on notice.

I also think SRQ is important to the BOS market (it sure doesnt do great out of NY if the upguaging/downguaging/LGA JFK shift/seasonal not seasonal history is any guide). That may save it as B6 is all about BOS these days

tphuang · Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:45 pm

Now that you mentioned it, I agree SRQ is safe. B6 is all about BOS these days and DL just entered BOS-SRQ on a limited basis. They are not going to want to give DL any daylight on a route like that. Here is my hope (which will probably never happen) on NY-DC market, buy the 3 LGA slots from F9, move LGA-PBI flights to JFK and start 6 flights on LGA-DCA. On DCA side, cut 1 flight off BOS, 2 flight to JAX, 1 flight to TPA and 2 to CHS.

Anyhow, September traffic numbers are out. Not good numbers at all. LF dips to 79.5% and RASM for Q3 is only up 1.7% YoY.

Here are things to think about for the domestic routes they added.

for FLL-PHX, this will be a tough market considering it's essentially hub to hub on both AA/WN.
CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM
MIAPHX 1972 AA 86519 306.92 302.39 361.84 92.37% 174.7 90.86% 274.75 0.1393
FLLPHX 1972 WN 30057 249.13 247.6 262.16 89.46% 165.1 91.04% 225.41 0.1143
FLLLAS 2173 B6 23407 196.15 195.51 305.73 99.42% 150.0 86.21% 168.56 0.0776
FLLLAS 2173 NK 28773 94.08 93.34 132.55 98.10% 180.0 87.35% 81.53 0.0375
FLLLAS 2173 WN 27858 212.68 211.03 221.86 84.72% 170.2 90.93% 191.89 0.0883

The fares on this don't look bad. Seems under served based on WN numbers. As a point of reference, I posted on FLL-LAS, which is a little longer. If they can get the same yield as on FLL-LAS, I'm sure they'd be happy if they get the same yield as on FLL-LAS.

on BOS-ROC, I have BUF/SYR/ROC here
CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM
BOSROC 343 MQ 14039 235.41 234.47 317.21 98.86% 44.10 71.77% 168.29 0.4906
BOSSYR 265 B6 14423 98.01 93.35 192.77 95.31% 100.6 80.13% 74.8 0.2823
BOSSYR 265 MQ 4923 112.65 112.62 121.58 99.71% 44.10 85.89% 96.73 0.365
BOSBUF 395 9E 11833 125.64 124.24 229.26 98.67% 50.00 75.13% 93.35 0.2363
BOSBUF 395 B6 61736 134.69 134.4 223.72 99.67% 101.2 74.83% 100.57 0.2546
BOSBUF 395 G7 6200 110.42 109.64 191.16 99.05% 70.00 79.08% 86.71 0.2195
Note that AA (MQ in this case) is flying very high CASM ERD here with 44 seats. So they are probably loosing money on SYR. I wouldn't be surprised to see it getting dropped soon. A B6 entrance into ROC will cause AA yields to plummet. My guess is they are hoping for AA to leave ROC/SYR completely. Also terrible numbers for DL on BUF.

SyracuseAvGeek · Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:57 pm

I highly doubt B6 will ROC, or SYR will ever be dropped given that they are priding themselves on being “New York’s airline” . I’m honestly surprised AA hasn’t dropped ROC or SYR especially. With AA dropping PIT from BOS, that only leaves SYR, ROC, and MDT as American Eagle destinations from that city.

evank516 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:22 pm

The uproar on DAB's Facebook page following yesterday's announcement was astounding. It looked like they were about to start a riot.

shadez · Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:13 pm

Plus, FLL-PHX basically replaces FLL-LGB, and I'm willing to bet PHX will perform better than LGB. Much better use of the aircraft.

tphuang wrote:
Now that you mentioned it, I agree SRQ is safe. B6 is all about BOS these days and DL just entered BOS-SRQ on a limited basis. They are not going to want to give DL any daylight on a route like that. Here is my hope (which will probably never happen) on NY-DC market, buy the 3 LGA slots from F9, move LGA-PBI flights to JFK and start 6 flights on LGA-DCA. On DCA side, cut 1 flight off BOS, 2 flight to JAX, 1 flight to TPA and 2 to CHS.

Anyhow, September traffic numbers are out. Not good numbers at all. LF dips to 79.5% and RASM for Q3 is only up 1.7% YoY.

Here are things to think about for the domestic routes they added.

for FLL-PHX, this will be a tough market considering it's essentially hub to hub on both AA/WN.
CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM
MIAPHX 1972 AA 86519 306.92 302.39 361.84 92.37% 174.7 90.86% 274.75 0.1393
FLLPHX 1972 WN 30057 249.13 247.6 262.16 89.46% 165.1 91.04% 225.41 0.1143
FLLLAS 2173 B6 23407 196.15 195.51 305.73 99.42% 150.0 86.21% 168.56 0.0776
FLLLAS 2173 NK 28773 94.08 93.34 132.55 98.10% 180.0 87.35% 81.53 0.0375
FLLLAS 2173 WN 27858 212.68 211.03 221.86 84.72% 170.2 90.93% 191.89 0.0883

The fares on this don't look bad. Seems under served based on WN numbers. As a point of reference, I posted on FLL-LAS, which is a little longer. If they can get the same yield as on FLL-LAS, I'm sure they'd be happy if they get the same yield as on FLL-LAS.

on BOS-ROC, I have BUF/SYR/ROC here
CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM
BOSROC 343 MQ 14039 235.41 234.47 317.21 98.86% 44.10 71.77% 168.29 0.4906
BOSSYR 265 B6 14423 98.01 93.35 192.77 95.31% 100.6 80.13% 74.8 0.2823
BOSSYR 265 MQ 4923 112.65 112.62 121.58 99.71% 44.10 85.89% 96.73 0.365
BOSBUF 395 9E 11833 125.64 124.24 229.26 98.67% 50.00 75.13% 93.35 0.2363
BOSBUF 395 B6 61736 134.69 134.4 223.72 99.67% 101.2 74.83% 100.57 0.2546
BOSBUF 395 G7 6200 110.42 109.64 191.16 99.05% 70.00 79.08% 86.71 0.2195
Note that AA (MQ in this case) is flying very high CASM ERD here with 44 seats. So they are probably loosing money on SYR. I wouldn't be surprised to see it getting dropped soon. A B6 entrance into ROC will cause AA yields to plummet. My guess is they are hoping for AA to leave ROC/SYR completely. Also terrible numbers for DL on BUF.

Planeboy17 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:28 pm

soflaflyer wrote:
TerminalD wrote:
I am hearing that there is an announcement tomorrow.

I think they will announce as many additions as cuts. Maybe not new stations in as many numbers, but new routes. New focus city?

I don't know much about B6 but for new focus city, how about AUS? I know DL has increased a lot there but B6 holds their own against them in JFK. They offer a differentiated product which I would think could be well received in AUS. Sounds like from all of the comments here, they need to do something to shake things up. AUS is growing incredibly fast and companies have money to spend on travel.

That ship has passed I think. There were whispers about them building up AUS alas, like the second west coast focus city, nothing ever happened.

Moosefire · Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:28 pm

Planeboy17 wrote:
soflaflyer wrote:
TerminalD wrote:
I am hearing that there is an announcement tomorrow.

I think they will announce as many additions as cuts. Maybe not new stations in as many numbers, but new routes. New focus city?

I don't know much about B6 but for new focus city, how about AUS? I know DL has increased a lot there but B6 holds their own against them in JFK. They offer a differentiated product which I would think could be well received in AUS. Sounds like from all of the comments here, they need to do something to shake things up. AUS is growing incredibly fast and companies have money to spend on travel.

That ship has passed I think. There were whispers about them building up AUS alas, like the second west coast focus city, nothing ever happened.

Agreed... the ship has passed. They once tried to serve six cities from Austin and it didn’t stick. The truth is while a growing city, Austin is also very well served by the each of the 4 largest carriers plus nearly all “boutique” options. It didn’t work 10 years ago, and I opine that it would be a much tougher battle today.

nine4nine · Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:52 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
727LOVER wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:

For now...

I was having a great Nelson HA HA day until I read THAT. If you know something......speak up !

I believe every secondary city with a nearby B6 major city is on notice.

May be true to an extent, but there are some secondary cities with high performance. BUR is one of the most profitable trancon routes for B6. They added a second JFK-BUR daytime flight to the existing red eye and from what I heard it’s doing really well. I haven’t heard much on the new BOS-BUR flight however other than its gradually fielding higher loads as time progresses

737307 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:55 pm

evank516 wrote:
The uproar on DAB's Facebook page following yesterday's announcement was astounding. It looked like they were about to start a riot.

If people wanna fly B6 from DAB they should have bought (and continue to buy) tickets on B6, instead of being over-entitled loudmouths flying the competition.

evank516 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:58 pm

Dieuwer wrote:
evank516 wrote:
The uproar on DAB's Facebook page following yesterday's announcement was astounding. It looked like they were about to start a riot.

If people wanna fly B6 from DAB they should have bought (and continue to buy) tickets on B6, instead of being over-entitled loudmouths flying the competition.

B6 isn't cancelling DAB due to low ridership FYI. They filled the planes rather well with a few odd low months here and there, but otherwise the planes were far from empty.

737307 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:00 pm

evank516 wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
evank516 wrote:
The uproar on DAB's Facebook page following yesterday's announcement was astounding. It looked like they were about to start a riot.

If people wanna fly B6 from DAB they should have bought (and continue to buy) tickets on B6, instead of being over-entitled loudmouths flying the competition.

B6 isn't cancelling DAB due to low ridership FYI. They filled the planes rather well with a few odd low months here and there, but otherwise the planes were far from empty.

tphuang wrote:

JFKDAB performance was okay, but I think the issue is that you can't really up gauge it to A321 without severely affecting the yield. TPA yield was only slightly higher but I think the cost at a single flight station is too high to justify.

Ridership might have been OK, but costs are too high (to operate this plane to this particular outstation). Fares have to rise significantly to balance those costs. And unless those DAB fliers pony-up the $$$ to make it worthwhile to B6, this flight is cut.

evank516 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:10 pm

Dieuwer wrote:
evank516 wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:

If people wanna fly B6 from DAB they should have bought (and continue to buy) tickets on B6, instead of being over-entitled loudmouths flying the competition.

B6 isn't cancelling DAB due to low ridership FYI. They filled the planes rather well with a few odd low months here and there, but otherwise the planes were far from empty.

tphuang wrote:

JFKDAB performance was okay, but I think the issue is that you can't really up gauge it to A321 without severely affecting the yield. TPA yield was only slightly higher but I think the cost at a single flight station is too high to justify.

Ridership might have been OK, but costs are too high (to operate this plane to this particular outstation). Fares have to rise significantly to balance those costs. And unless those DAB fliers pony-up the $$$ to make it worthwhile to B6, this flight is cut.

Ridership was meeting expectations with some spikes here and there. March, April, and July saw loads 90% or higher. Assuming the A320s flying to DAB still had 150 seats, the amount of pax filling up the plane more than exceeded the capacity of the E190. Tell me though, what costs are too high to operate to DAB? Is it their landing fees? Because DAB's landing fee is lower than MCO. PFCs? Impossible, airports don't regulate them. Employee wages? B6 only staffed above the wing.

Another thing to keep in mind is that they've been operating there incentive free since October 2017. Unfortunately no, this route can't support the A321, but it can definitely support the A220. I wonder if they may go back when they take deliveries.

737307 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:13 pm

evank516 wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
evank516 wrote:

B6 isn't cancelling DAB due to low ridership FYI. They filled the planes rather well with a few odd low months here and there, but otherwise the planes were far from empty.

tphuang wrote:

JFKDAB performance was okay, but I think the issue is that you can't really up gauge it to A321 without severely affecting the yield. TPA yield was only slightly higher but I think the cost at a single flight station is too high to justify.

Ridership might have been OK, but costs are too high (to operate this plane to this particular outstation). Fares have to rise significantly to balance those costs. And unless those DAB fliers pony-up the $$$ to make it worthwhile to B6, this flight is cut.

Ridership was meeting expectations with some spikes here and there. March, April, and July saw loads 90% or higher. Assuming the A320s flying to DAB still had 150 seats, the amount of pax filling up the plane more than exceeded the capacity of the E190. Tell me though, what costs are too high to operate to DAB? Is it their landing fees? Because DAB's landing fee is lower than MCO. PFCs? Impossible, airports don't regulate them. Employee wages? B6 only staffed above the wing.

Another thing to keep in mind is that they've been operating there incentive free since October 2017. Unfortunately no, this route can't support the A321, but it can definitely support the A220. I wonder if they may go back when they take deliveries.

Ridership ≠ profits.

AA94 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:22 pm

evank516 wrote:
Ridership was meeting expectations with some spikes here and there. March, April, and July saw loads 90% or higher. Assuming the A320s flying to DAB still had 150 seats, the amount of pax filling up the plane more than exceeded the capacity of the E190. Tell me though, what costs are too high to operate to DAB? Is it their landing fees? Because DAB's landing fee is lower than MCO. PFCs? Impossible, airports don't regulate them. Employee wages? B6 only staffed above the wing.

What's the allegation here? There was *some cost* that was too high for B6, even if only opportunity cost.

tphuang · Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:23 pm

I think we should just wait and see. Their schedule extension is out this Sunday and there may be more to discuss after seeing that. I don't think they are finished making adjustments. The most in danger ones are stations with 1 or 2 daily flights and no service to BOS. Especially ones with JFK slots, since B6 likes to shift them to more profitable Carribean flights.

My big question is after they cut more lower yielding JFK flights, where are the slots going to? Are they going to a place like BNA or MSP or CLE or TATL or are they all going to Carribeans? I would love to see increased frequencies from JFK flights to the south like RDU, CLT, ATL, MSY.

JFK-DAB is probably no longer profitable at current fuel prices. There are obviously routes that do far worse like most of Cuban and LGB flights, but they see greater strategic reasons to keep those flights. A flight like DAB needs to be profitable since it's not very important network wise and also requires one JFK slot. If they were able to get higher yield to DAB than TPA or RSW, then it would still be around today. As for why is the cost higher, spreading the fixed costs of having a station across many flights lowers the cost. And being able to upgauge to A321 lowers the cost by a lot.

evank516 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:04 pm

Dieuwer wrote:
evank516 wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:

Ridership might have been OK, but costs are too high (to operate this plane to this particular outstation). Fares have to rise significantly to balance those costs. And unless those DAB fliers pony-up the $$$ to make it worthwhile to B6, this flight is cut.

Ridership was meeting expectations with some spikes here and there. March, April, and July saw loads 90% or higher. Assuming the A320s flying to DAB still had 150 seats, the amount of pax filling up the plane more than exceeded the capacity of the E190. Tell me though, what costs are too high to operate to DAB? Is it their landing fees? Because DAB's landing fee is lower than MCO. PFCs? Impossible, airports don't regulate them. Employee wages? B6 only staffed above the wing.

Another thing to keep in mind is that they've been operating there incentive free since October 2017. Unfortunately no, this route can't support the A321, but it can definitely support the A220. I wonder if they may go back when they take deliveries.

Ridership ≠ profits.

Well aware of that, however the route wasn't losing money either. It just wasn't making as much as other routes and tphuang displayed that info on here before.

tphuang · Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:32 pm

everything I post here on whether or not a route makes money is based on comparison to similar staged routes. My guess is that DAB made money on the fuel prices were low and now that it's doubled, it's probably loosing money. Again, if people were willing to pay a premium to fly into DAB on the only flight from JFK rather than transiting at ATL or CLT, it would still be around.

More from Q2 and I think BTV is in big trouble long term. I also don't see the point in keeping PWM at 3 times a day during seasonal service.
CityPair AvgNSFare LF Yield
JFKSYR 135.75 74.56% 114.1
JFKROC 160.1 80.15% 128.32
JFKPWM 121.25 72.90% 88.39
JFKBTV 123.36 78.21% 96.47
SYR/ROC do siginificantly better than PWM/BTV.

JetBlueCLT · Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:59 pm

[quote="tphuang"]I think we should just wait and see. Their schedule extension is out this Sunday and there may be more to discuss after seeing that. I don't think they are finished making adjustments. The most in danger ones are stations with 1 or 2 daily flights and no service to BOS. Especially ones with JFK slots, since B6 likes to shift them to more profitable Carribean flights.

My big question is after they cut more lower yielding JFK flights, where are the slots going to? Are they going to a place like BNA or MSP or CLE or TATL or are they all going to Carribeans? I would love to see increased frequencies from JFK flights to the south like RDU, CLT, ATL, MSY.

Likewise, JFK-RDU was recently bumped to 3 daily this past year or so. Waiting patiently on CLT-JFK to go back to 3 flights a day. Would love to see a early afternoon flight to connect to B6 international partners in JFK. This route hasn’t been 3 a day since DEC 2012. It appears that CLT/RDU/SAV/CHS/MSY do well from JFK. From what I’ve read numerous times on this forum.

uconn99 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:05 pm

I am seeing an A321 on PBI-BDL in January, is this correct?

ROCDLFAN · Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:24 pm

tphuang wrote:
everything I post here on whether or not a route makes money is based on comparison to similar staged routes. My guess is that DAB made money on the fuel prices were low and now that it's doubled, it's probably loosing money. Again, if people were willing to pay a premium to fly into DAB on the only flight from JFK rather than transiting at ATL or CLT, it would still be around.

More from Q2 and I think BTV is in big trouble long term. I also don't see the point in keeping PWM at 3 times a day during seasonal service.
CityPair AvgNSFare LF Yield
JFKSYR 135.75 74.56% 114.1
JFKROC 160.1 80.15% 128.32
JFKPWM 121.25 72.90% 88.39
JFKBTV 123.36 78.21% 96.47
SYR/ROC do siginificantly better than PWM/BTV.

I didn’t know ROC actually was that profitable for B6, which is very nice to see. Connecting the dots, them adding BOS makes more sense now and hopefully leaves the door open for a return to Florida from ROC.

FARmd90 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:26 pm

uconn99 wrote:
I am seeing an A321 on PBI-BDL in January, is this correct?

I just tried a random date for January on the app, picking the 18th. And yes there is a 321 on this route in addition to the 320.

slcdeltarumd11 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:32 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
727LOVER wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:

For now...

I was having a great Nelson HA HA day until I read THAT. If you know something......speak up !

JetBlue publicly said more daylight transcons (which are not included this time around)

I also think SRQ is important to the BOS market (it sure doesnt do great out of NY if the upguaging/downguaging/LGA JFK shift/seasonal not seasonal history is any guide). That may save it as B6 is all about BOS these days

B6 has added a daytime SLC-JFK flight its loaded. I think DEN is supposed to get loaded too. Could just be that. Routes that historically only had red-eyes are gaining a daytime frequency too.

AirFiero · Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:58 pm

evank516 wrote:
enilria wrote:
evank516 wrote:

See this is what doesn't make sense to me. If they're so focused on growth at JFK, why would they drop so many cities that are served exclusively from JFK?

They are focused on making money at JFK. I can imagine a strategy to improve their operational performance where they stop trying to connect at JFK and ditch everything "not important to NYC residents" which would mean more transcon/Florida/Caribbean and less of everything else. US Airways was "focused on DCA" for years while flying 1% over minimum slot utilization. It was their most profitable hub by margin.

So then why axe DAB and SRQ? They're Florida cities, and frankly they do seem to fill the planes for the most part. Yield may be low, but isn't that all Florida flights from NY?

Then you have OAK and SJC, these are transcons. SJC shocks me with DL starting JFK-SJC and I believe AA as well? Maybe it's just DL. RNO I can see going since New Yorkers go to Vegas, and ABQ really doesn't make much sense.

Yeah, DL shocked me as well. Not AA, it was UA to EWR but I think they dropped it. B6 does a red eye SJC-JFK, I think AS does SJC-JFK/EWR?

EvanWSFO · Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:18 pm

This was just on ATW Online (I think I can post this legally, for those that don't subscribe):

The most recent round of changes includes pulling all service out of Washington-Dulles International Airport, where the airline serves Boston and JFK. JetBlue also will end flights to Daytona Beach, Florida, and St. Croix. In addition, it is cutting service to Baltimore, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Santiago, Dominican Republic, and reducing double-daily service between Mexico City and both Fort Lauderdale and Orlando to one daily frequency. JetBlue previously announced plans to serve Mexico City from both Boston and JFK, using slots originally intended to support Long Beach-Mexico City service.

737307 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:28 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
727LOVER wrote:

I was having a great Nelson HA HA day until I read THAT. If you know something......speak up !

JetBlue publicly said more daylight transcons (which are not included this time around)

I also think SRQ is important to the BOS market (it sure doesnt do great out of NY if the upguaging/downguaging/LGA JFK shift/seasonal not seasonal history is any guide). That may save it as B6 is all about BOS these days

B6 has added a daytime SLC-JFK flight its loaded. I think DEN is supposed to get loaded too. Could just be that. Routes that historically only had red-eyes are gaining a daytime frequency too.

A daytime flight DEN-BOS would nice...

MIflyer12 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:39 pm

Abeam79 wrote:
To make Dtw/pit/bwi from Fll work, and I been saying this for years, is that they need more freq to better compete, but they are too cheap to buy more airplanes and keep deferring them. I guess when the A220 comes online they will be back. That I will bet my house on.

Why? FLL is a leisure destination. Leisure doesn't demand frequency. For Monday, 1/14/19:

AA DTW-MIA, 2x
NK DTW-FLL, 2x
DL DTW-FLL, 5x, and DTW-MIA, 2x

Where's the guy who kept arguing how strong B6 JFK-DAB was, and how Delta needed NYC-DAB to compete?

ucdtim17 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:44 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
727LOVER wrote:

I was having a great Nelson HA HA day until I read THAT. If you know something......speak up !

JetBlue publicly said more daylight transcons (which are not included this time around)

I also think SRQ is important to the BOS market (it sure doesnt do great out of NY if the upguaging/downguaging/LGA JFK shift/seasonal not seasonal history is any guide). That may save it as B6 is all about BOS these days

B6 has added a daytime SLC-JFK flight its loaded. I think DEN is supposed to get loaded too. Could just be that. Routes that historically only had red-eyes are gaining a daytime frequency too.

If they're not going to cut OAK and SJC, hopefully they can finally do something other than redeyes there.

737307 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:45 pm

Speaking about Florida, I wonder if that state is "over-served" by airports. I mean, on the South-East coast there are a bunch of airports just 25 miles apart from each other!

FARmd90 · Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:50 pm

A daytime flight DEN-BOS would nice...[/quote]

They already do fly a daytime DEN-BOS all year except for Saturday’s during the winter months. Usually leaves around 10:30am getting in at 5pm. JFK also has a daytime flight typically only in the summer in addition to the redeye.

iyerhari · Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:59 pm

SyracuseAvGeek wrote:
I’m honestly surprised AA hasn’t dropped ROC or SYR especially. With AA dropping PIT from BOS, that only leaves SYR, ROC, and MDT as American Eagle destinations from that city.

AA will keep the routes as long as fares are high and they can make a good profit.

E.g. BOS-MDT roundtrip next week Mon-Thu roundtrip is $930 and two weeks out is still a good $780

BOS-ROC next week Mon-Thu roundtrip is $650

BOS-SYR next week Mon-Thu roundtrip is $281 (thanks to B6 entering the route IMO for the fare decrease). This route maybe the next to get cut if it does not generate enough for AA.

If DL were to start any or all these routes, then bets are off and AA is out of the route similar to RDU, BUF and PIT in the same order. I have seen DL entering the route has ensured AA exits the route.

Based on all the analysis provided by tphuang (thank you as always!) DL is willing to stomach the losses at this time in their quest to build the BOS focus city.

FlyBTV · Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:07 am

tphuang wrote:
More from Q2 and I think BTV is in big trouble long term. I also don't see the point in keeping PWM at 3 times a day during seasonal service.

I hope you’re wrong, but I can’t argue with your reasoning. One thing I did not realize is that Delta added BTV-JFK flights this year to complete against JetBlue, which seems to have brought down fares on this route. A number of flights from AA, UA (and maybe DL, not sure) have been upgauged to larger aircraft, in some cases mainline flights. BTV is seeing the highest number of passengers it has in years. Hard to believe that B6 would pack up and leave with the airport at such a high point, but I’ll admit that it’s a possibility.

That being said, I’d think if they really wanted to cut BTV, I’d think they’d have just done it in the last round. Like PWM, BTV has pretty strong demand over the summer, and I think much of the ski traffic tends to drive rather than fly. The fact they left it alone makes me think they are waiting to see how things shake out with Delta on the route.

I wonder if they’d consider dropping it two flights a day, and maybe dropping some mid-week flights. As long as they maintain a presence in the airport, BTV benefits, even if it’s not daily and the frequencies are cut back.

I remember when I worked there (‘07-‘08) fuel was extremely expensive and they were flying 4x A320s a day to JFK. If they could make it work then, it’s pretty sad they can’t make it work now. PWM is in a much better place with SW having a presence. B6 leaving BTV would be pretty devastating.

Here’s a recent article on the recent growth of BTV: https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/btv ... d=21581652

slcdeltarumd11 · Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:44 am

BTV-NYC is just low fare. Constantly $49 one way 21 plus days ahead. It has united to ewr, delta to lga, delta to JFK, and JetBlue to JFK. Lots of competition.

I don't think fares being low are a a problem as JetBlue is almost all connections on the route. They don't operate that route for the o&d it's all for connections. It's a feeder route and BTV airfares are generally very high to everththing that is not NYC/DC.

Let's just hope they keep btv, would be really sad to see a station with a long history for JetBlue close.

Blerg · Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:28 am

Does B6 have any aircraft stationed at SLC? They seem to have a growing presence there. Are they competing with DL on many routes?

tphuang · Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:32 pm

Interesting tidbit from Delta's earning thread. Looks like Latin America yields are down in Q3, which is pretty bad news for B6, given 30% of their capacity goes there. I think this quarter's results will not look very good.

iyerhari wrote:
Based on all the analysis provided by tphuang (thank you as always!) DL is willing to stomach the losses at this time in their quest to build the BOS focus city.

you are welcome.

Blerg wrote:
Does B6 have any aircraft stationed at SLC? They seem to have a growing presence there. Are they competing with DL on many routes?

They have a support center there, which is why they serve this many city out of SLC. They compete against DL on all 5 routes out of SLC as one would expect. JFK-SLC is probably their best performing one and I'm sure the extra daytime flight will help that. SLC is an interesting market that does about as well in Q1 as in summer time.

Blerg · Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:46 pm

tphuang wrote:
Interesting tidbit from Delta's earning thread. Looks like Latin America yields are down in Q3, which is pretty bad news for B6, given 30% of their capacity goes there. I think this quarter's results will not look very good.

iyerhari wrote:
Based on all the analysis provided by tphuang (thank you as always!) DL is willing to stomach the losses at this time in their quest to build the BOS focus city.

you are welcome.

Blerg wrote:
Does B6 have any aircraft stationed at SLC? They seem to have a growing presence there. Are they competing with DL on many routes?

They have a support center there, which is why they serve this many city out of SLC. They compete against DL on all 5 routes out of SLC as one would expect. JFK-SLC is probably their best performing one and I'm sure the extra daytime flight will help that. SLC is an interesting market that does about as well in Q1 as in summer time.

Interesting, so they are managing to outperform DL on all of them?

tphuang · Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:41 pm

Blerg wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Interesting tidbit from Delta's earning thread. Looks like Latin America yields are down in Q3, which is pretty bad news for B6, given 30% of their capacity goes there. I think this quarter's results will not look very good.

iyerhari wrote:
Based on all the analysis provided by tphuang (thank you as always!) DL is willing to stomach the losses at this time in their quest to build the BOS focus city.

you are welcome.

Blerg wrote:
Does B6 have any aircraft stationed at SLC? They seem to have a growing presence there. Are they competing with DL on many routes?

They have a support center there, which is why they serve this many city out of SLC. They compete against DL on all 5 routes out of SLC as one would expect. JFK-SLC is probably their best performing one and I'm sure the extra daytime flight will help that. SLC is an interesting market that does about as well in Q1 as in summer time.

Interesting, so they are managing to outperform DL on all of them?

Not the slc routes. It’s hard to outperform dl on their fortress hubs. Dl has a lot of connections going through them.

mjgbtv · Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:20 pm

FlyBTV wrote:
tphuang wrote:
More from Q2 and I think BTV is in big trouble long term. I also don't see the point in keeping PWM at 3 times a day during seasonal service.

I hope you’re wrong, but I can’t argue with your reasoning. One thing I did not realize is that Delta added BTV-JFK flights this year to complete against JetBlue, which seems to have brought down fares on this route. A number of flights from AA, UA (and maybe DL, not sure) have been upgauged to larger aircraft, in some cases mainline flights. BTV is seeing the highest number of passengers it has in years. Hard to believe that B6 would pack up and leave with the airport at such a high point, but I’ll admit that it’s a possibility.

That being said, I’d think if they really wanted to cut BTV, I’d think they’d have just done it in the last round. Like PWM, BTV has pretty strong demand over the summer, and I think much of the ski traffic tends to drive rather than fly. The fact they left it alone makes me think they are waiting to see how things shake out with Delta on the route.

I wonder if they’d consider dropping it two flights a day, and maybe dropping some mid-week flights. As long as they maintain a presence in the airport, BTV benefits, even if it’s not daily and the frequencies are cut back.

I remember when I worked there (‘07-‘08) fuel was extremely expensive and they were flying 4x A320s a day to JFK. If they could make it work then, it’s pretty sad they can’t make it work now. PWM is in a much better place with SW having a presence. B6 leaving BTV would be pretty devastating.

Here’s a recent article on the recent growth of BTV: https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/btv ... d=21581652

I also wonder why they haven't tried going to 2x daily if they are really unhappy with BTV. It seems like that would check several of the boxes on their plan.

I'm not so sure about the skiing. Obviously people are flying from Toronto so I presume they'll fly from the US as well. And of course lots of Vermonters and Canadians like to fly south in the winter. From what I can tell winter demand is not all that different from summer, at least to cities that JetBlue serves.

uconn99 · Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:23 pm

FARmd90 wrote:
uconn99 wrote:
I am seeing an A321 on PBI-BDL in January, is this correct?

I just tried a random date for January on the app, picking the 18th. And yes there is a 321 on this route in addition to the 320.

This will be the first scheduled A321 route from B6 at BDL.

soflaflyer · Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:50 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
Abeam79 wrote:
To make Dtw/pit/bwi from Fll work, and I been saying this for years, is that they need more freq to better compete, but they are too cheap to buy more airplanes and keep deferring them. I guess when the A220 comes online they will be back. That I will bet my house on.

Why? FLL is a leisure destination. Leisure doesn't demand frequency. For Monday, 1/14/19:

AA DTW-MIA, 2x
NK DTW-FLL, 2x
DL DTW-FLL, 5x, and DTW-MIA, 2x

Where's the guy who kept arguing how strong B6 JFK-DAB was, and how Delta needed NYC-DAB to compete?

FLL is not only leisure, we do work down here. FLL / MIA is where most companies choose to place their Latin America Regional HQ.

INFINITI329 · Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:06 am

Planeboy17 wrote:
catiii wrote:
Everyone relax. Fuel is up 34% YOY. It's smart capacity discipline to adjust the network as a result towards the most profitable flying.

I don’t understand how FLL- PHX will work if they can’t make PIT, DTW and BWI work. I’m happy their adding to PHX but not sure this route will work better than adding more from BOS, but that’s why I’m not in Long Island City.

There's no way B6 could compete with WN on BWI-FLL. WN has feed on both ends and serves the route 8x daily. DTW Im guessing DL and NK made life difficult for them.

tphuang wrote:
for FLL-PHX, this will be a tough market considering it's essentially hub to hub on both AA/WN.

Not really,...WN's current timing on their PHX-FLL flight means 0 connections out of FLL. B6 will be better positioned to siphon off some off both AA & DL Caribbean bound traffic from PHX. B6 & WN will only be competing for pax for whom time of arrival matters.

EBiafore99 · Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:16 pm

INFINITI329 wrote:
Planeboy17 wrote:
catiii wrote:
Everyone relax. Fuel is up 34% YOY. It's smart capacity discipline to adjust the network as a result towards the most profitable flying.

I don’t understand how FLL- PHX will work if they can’t make PIT, DTW and BWI work. I’m happy their adding to PHX but not sure this route will work better than adding more from BOS, but that’s why I’m not in Long Island City.

There's no way B6 could compete with WN on BWI-FLL. WN has feed on both ends and serves the route 8x daily. DTW Im guessing DL and NK made life difficult for them.

tphuang wrote:
for FLL-PHX, this will be a tough market considering it's essentially hub to hub on both AA/WN.

Not really,...WN's current timing on their PHX-FLL flight means 0 connections out of FLL. B6 will be better positioned to siphon off some off both AA & DL Caribbean bound traffic from PHX. B6 & WN will only be competing for pax for whom time of arrival matters.

Your last comment makes me chuckle from the standpoint that is why I think DTW-FLL was a failure (in part). As a DTW flyer, every time I tried to book a flight to the Caribbean from DTW, B6's connections in FLL were either terrible or non-existent. I either had to stay in FLL one night before or after my trip in order to build a connection. With such bad connections, they had to rely on O&D, which, has been discussed in many posts, was subject to a lot of competition.

I think it is interesting that B6 talks about it's focus on the Caribbean and then eliminates feeder routes (DTW, BWI, etc...). I wonder if they actually timed their DTW, BWI, etc. flights better for connections if these flights would be better performing.

B6Aviator · Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:56 pm

The flights from FLL to BWI, PIT and DTW perform decently but are primarily targeted for connections. I think another issue is the late departure times from Fort Lauderdale required crews to overnight in those cities adding more cost. I would expect those cities, including some other current Bluecities, to be added back to the FLL route tree when the A220 is on property.

The reality is that the freed up aircraft will generate better returns on routes like GYE, SXM & PHX. A third Mint LAX flight is loaded into the scedule and I've been told of some other connect the dot domestic/international additions planned for FLL.

tphuang · Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:40 am

I will post the Q2 numbers on FLL in a few days, but the 3 cuts BWI/PIT/DTW to concern me quite a bit. The reason is they perform even worse at ORD and there are a couple of other airports MSY/SAN/BNA that are only performing a little better than the ones they cut. Especially BWI, it seems to me a route they should keep. A220 would probably serve all of these locations better, but it remains to be seen what they choose to add.

Anyways, more BOS market numbers. I've already posted the mint routes, some leisure Florida numbers, up state new york + a chunk of business ones. This will be a continuation of that.

CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare% NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM Vs B6
BOSCLT 728 AA 239366 206.77 205.47 271.46 98.03% 170.4 89.55% 184.01 0.2528 109.99%
BOSCLT 728 B6 29646 193.91 193.84 341.19 99.95% 100.7 86.31% 167.29 0.2298 100.00%
This route has stayed relatively constant in the past few quarters. B6 does well enough here to make a profit and AA doesn't have a huge revenue premium due to operating much denser aircraft with more 8 times the total capacity. B6 yield is up 15 to 20% here YoY. One of the few that did better YoY.

CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare% NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM Vs B6
BOSCLE 563 B6 46235 159.22 159.22 N/A 100.00% 100.8 89.60% 142.66 0.2534 100.00%
BOSCLE 563 EV 18377 210.92 212.81 192.4 90.74% 50.00 91.43% 194.57 0.3456 136.38%
BOSCLE 563 NK 18926 43.46 43.46 N/A 100.00% 150.7 78.49% 34.11 0.0606 23.91%
Again a relatively constant route. I'm not sure how NK sticks around with that kind of performance. The yield advantage UA has here is overstated since they are flying very high CASM 50 seater. B6 yield is up marginally YoY. Probably profitable here.

CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare% NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM Vs B6
BOSDEN 1754 B6 43629 219.54 219.34 305.94 99.76% 150.6 84.47% 185.28 0.1056 100.00%
BOSDEN 1754 UA 129137 266.93 265.19 328.18 97.23% 174.2 89.84% 238.25 0.1358 128.59%
BOSDEN 1754 WN 73676 223.51 222.32 250.83 95.83% 165.3 88.59% 196.96 0.1123 106.31%
Tough market for B6 that would probably be better served by A220. These 1400+ non-mint routes to Big 4 strongholds are some of their worst performing routes. UA understandably dominates here and WN also provides strong competition. B6 yield is down a little more than 10% YoY. Average fare dropped almost $20.

CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare% NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM Vs B6
BOSBNA 942 9E 16008 192.13 192.68 178.2 96.20% 76.00 88.87% 171.24 0.1818 112%
BOSBNA 942 B6 48272 171.73 171.66 225.94 99.88% 148.9 89.06% 152.88 0.1623 100%
BOSBNA 942 OO 8659 189.73 186.83 237.29 94.24% 74.10 92.69% 173.17 0.1838 113%
BOSBNA 942 WN 73882 157.84 156.13 193.11 95.38% 161.0 86.41% 134.92 0.1432 88%
Amongst the new routes DL added out of BOS with B6 competition, this seems like the best performing one. Although keep in mind here that DL is operating 70 to 76 seaters here whereas B6/WN are both operating 150 to 160 seaters. WN is again very weak here in what's supposed to be a stronghold for them. I think DL is capturing quite a bit of point of sale at BNA. B6 is basically flat YoY here. WN is down 15% YoY.

CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM Vs B6
BOSLGA 184 AA 137803 174.62 174.51 99.97% 101.1 68.57% 119.65 0.6503 123.98%
BOSLGA 184 B6 59136 145.08 145.08 100.00% 100.7 66.52% 96.51 0.5245 100.00%
BOSLGA 184 DL 71133 202.84 202.84 100.00% 116.2 73.67% 149.43 0.8121 154.84%
BOSLGA 184 YX 96269 218.3 218.3 100.00% 74.50 81.09% 177.01 0.962 183.42%
Obviously one of the largest business routes. All the yields are up YoY. I'm not too clear here how much of YX is DL or AA. B6 fare is up from $122 to $145 YoY. Note, 2017 Q2 was the second full quarter since they entered the route. Back in 2016, DL avg $270 on this route, so a pretty large drop for them (although smaller than on MSP and ATL). I think it might make sense for them to use the 3 LGA-PBI slots on this route to become even more competitive here if they really want to strengthen BOS network.

NWADTWE16 · Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:20 am

I personally championed the B6 nonstop DTW-FLL since it's inception, and have turned many O&D people on especially the DTW side, but also those who moved to FLL/MIA metro onto the flight. I think lack of advertising, lack of really any attempt at letting the public even know B6 was there, and coupled with horrible connections out of FLL, which always resulted in 1 way ok, but the other not. This killed it, but I do agree, it should be a top contender for return once A220 on property.
I am disappointed in B6 so much lately, and this one hits home. They could've grown to 2 Daily at least, allowing all the connection cities to work, on one or the other. I thought they'd get into the MCO market by now as well, instead we lost FLL after 6 years, and now I see the three daily BOS are all E190s, no more A320s, even on the Europe connection route.

What the H*LL is going on with this management group, the first airline coup needs to happen, oh wait, the second?

B595 · Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:52 am

FlyBTV wrote:
Here’s a recent article on the recent growth of BTV: https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/btv ... d=21581652

Good piece, thanks for linking to it.

They are right about leakage to BOS. I've visited Burlington dozens of times in recent years and ~40% of those times I flew into/out of BOS and drove up and back to Burlington. The competition in BOS has really brought fares down, flying into BOS avoids the unreliable regional airlines, and the drive is usually easy (weather permitting).

On the subject of increased mainline service, I'm skeptical that the Burlington airport folks had much to do with that. I think that's more a response by the major airlines themselves to the pilot shortage and the increasingly poor reliability of the regional airlines.

As for B6 and BTV, I'd be disappointed if they pulled up stakes and left (I remember those 4x/day A320s). But I wouldn't be surprised. Their costs (fuel and labor) have increased and their business model has evolved to a more premium orientation, which doesn't seem a good fit for Burlington. The Burlington area is not particularly wealthy, in general, nor does it have a large business base. In fact, it keeps hemorrhaging important business to other states, the latest examples being Nokian Tire moving its regional headquarters from Colchester to Chattanooga, Tennessee and Global Foundries reducing its Essex Junction workforce. Meanwhile, the oft-mentioned Quebecois that come across the border to fly are bargain hunters. I know some of the skiers and summer vacationers coming to Vermont are well to do, but I'm not sure they're sufficient to keep B6 around given all the weaknesses in the market.

mjgbtv · Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:39 am

tphuang wrote:
More from Q2 and I think BTV is in big trouble long term. I also don't see the point in keeping PWM at 3 times a day during seasonal service.
CityPair AvgNSFare LF Yield
JFKSYR 135.75 74.56% 114.1
JFKROC 160.1 80.15% 128.32
JFKPWM 121.25 72.90% 88.39
JFKBTV 123.36 78.21% 96.47
SYR/ROC do siginificantly better than PWM/BTV.

Am I missing something or should the yield for JFK-SYR be 101, not 114?

jfklganyc · Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:17 pm

Guys wake up call.

Robin Hayes was revenue management.

He was and is famous for saying “50 percent of our routes lose money, but we need those routes to support our other routes”

Airlines fly routes for lots of reasons.

For instance, DAB with mid 80s LF and ok yields was cut...while Cuba with 40 people in the back lives on. Cuba is a bloodbath.

To go list by list and try to pick cut cities is useless.

Someone was comparing DTW BWI ORD and MSY to FLL.

MSY and ORD are just more important then DTW or BWI to B6. I dont think they have made a dime at ORD. But the city stays. DTW and BWI need to be served from BOS....but not much else.

PlanesNTrains · Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:34 pm

Got an Airfarewatchdog email showing a $62RT fare on B6 PHX-BOS. Might be time to get back on a B6 flight.

flymco753 · Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:36 pm

B6 COULD add DTW-JFK, but they won't. They MIGHT add DTW-MCO, but I'm not holding my breath. DTW is becoming a station where B6 has to push a boulder up hill. BOS isn't performing all that well either. The only reason they keep it is EK connections. You bet once DTW gets EK, B6 is out.

WeatherPilot · Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:44 pm

mjgbtv wrote:
tphuang wrote:
More from Q2 and I think BTV is in big trouble long term. I also don't see the point in keeping PWM at 3 times a day during seasonal service.
CityPair AvgNSFare LF Yield
JFKSYR 135.75 74.56% 114.1
JFKROC 160.1 80.15% 128.32
JFKPWM 121.25 72.90% 88.39
JFKBTV 123.36 78.21% 96.47
SYR/ROC do siginificantly better than PWM/BTV.

Am I missing something or should the yield for JFK-SYR be 101, not 114?

Edit: I had something written here but nevermind...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net