JetBlue Network Thread 2018

PlanesNTrains · Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:11 pm

So decimate Alaska intrastate flying, regional ops, and refit hundreds of Alaska aircraft inside and out. Cha-Ching.

Jshank83 · Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:17 pm

jplatts wrote:
fastmover wrote:
Blueknows wrote:
Get ready for more B6 cuts beginning of January. Also this week big announcement. Listen for news from Boston on Wednesday.

The Leadership team will be in Boston for a base meeting in Thursday. So it seems like they will be up that way. If it’s a Boston announcement I would think it might be the long awaited TATL announcement.
I’m not sure what other big announcement would come out of there.

STL, SAT, CVG, MCI, CMH, IND, ORF, and MKE are located in the largest U.S. metro areas that aren't currently served by B6, and B6 might possibly be announcing nonstop service from BOS to some of these destinations.

Didn't the CEO (or some higher up) just say they weren't looking to add anything in the Midwest, and were more focused on Europe or something to that effect.

nine4nine · Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:37 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
So decimate Alaska intrastate flying, regional ops, and refit hundreds of Alaska aircraft inside and out. Cha-Ching.

If you want to sit at the poker table with the others you gotta have a stack of chips, a good hand, a good strategy or you fold. So yes cha Ching is right. You take the risk, you cut the waste and focus on where the $$ is and you survive or you eventually disappear either through buyout or BK.

PlanesNTrains · Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:59 pm

nine4nine wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
So decimate Alaska intrastate flying, regional ops, and refit hundreds of Alaska aircraft inside and out. Cha-Ching.

If you want to sit at the poker table with the others you gotta have a stack of chips, a good hand, a good strategy or you fold. So yes cha Ching is right. You take the risk, you cut the waste and focus on where the $$ is and you survive or you eventually disappear either through buyout or BK.

I don’t disagree. I’m just seeing a combination of a high acquisition cost, expensive pull downs in service, reduced revenue to pay for it as you have tossed the dominance in Alaska, have dozens of not-free regional jets to dispose of, stations to close, a regional to wind down, and a solid billion+ in fleet overhauls. That’s a lot of money to spend and debt to take on and not a whole ton to gain. Then there’s marketing, mgmt attention, employee integration, and all that stuff. Again, I guess if that’s what it takes, oh well, but I think that strategy risked cutting them off at the knees in multiple ways.

nine4nine · Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:26 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
So decimate Alaska intrastate flying, regional ops, and refit hundreds of Alaska aircraft inside and out. Cha-Ching.

If you want to sit at the poker table with the others you gotta have a stack of chips, a good hand, a good strategy or you fold. So yes cha Ching is right. You take the risk, you cut the waste and focus on where the $$ is and you survive or you eventually disappear either through buyout or BK.

I don’t disagree. I’m just seeing a combination of a high acquisition cost, expensive pull downs in service, reduced revenue to pay for it as you have tossed the dominance in Alaska, have dozens of not-free regional jets to dispose of, stations to close, a regional to wind down, and a solid billion+ in fleet overhauls. That’s a lot of money to spend and debt to take on and not a whole ton to gain. Then there’s marketing, mgmt attention, employee integration, and all that stuff. Again, I guess if that’s what it takes, oh well, but I think that strategy risked cutting them off at the knees in multiple ways.

Yea I totally get your points, it would be a massive undertaking and very expensive for sure. However it’s sort of a sink or swim scenario and the landscape of the avaiation industry is in transition globally with the fuel prices rising and labor factors. B6 was a lot like the WN of the 80’s/90’s that was mostly centric to middle America and heavily in the southwest and West Coast.

What really continued the legacy of WN successes was the large build up on the east coast to complete total coverage for a national network. Granted they’ve had not the best success in certain markets like PHL, BOS and ATL they still manage to successfully operate many flights up and down the east coast with high frequency and decent loads.

This is exactly what B6 needs on the west coast to create a complete national network and not just be known an an east coast centric carrier. The lackluster attempt at doing this with very little frequencies from LGB is a complete failure. And no airport on the West has the gate space to offer B6 that they can build a sizeable operation. The only way to achieve this is by merging with a likeminded competitor as AS is basically the west coast version of B6. I think with the BIG3, a large WN in 4th, that all other carriers outside that grouping will need to really strategize and pair up to survive. F9 and NK may even have to tie the knot at some point to remain competitive with the evolving landscape in the industry.

cledaybuck · Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:45 pm

nine4nine wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
nine4nine wrote:

If you want to sit at the poker table with the others you gotta have a stack of chips, a good hand, a good strategy or you fold. So yes cha Ching is right. You take the risk, you cut the waste and focus on where the $$ is and you survive or you eventually disappear either through buyout or BK.

I don’t disagree. I’m just seeing a combination of a high acquisition cost, expensive pull downs in service, reduced revenue to pay for it as you have tossed the dominance in Alaska, have dozens of not-free regional jets to dispose of, stations to close, a regional to wind down, and a solid billion+ in fleet overhauls. That’s a lot of money to spend and debt to take on and not a whole ton to gain. Then there’s marketing, mgmt attention, employee integration, and all that stuff. Again, I guess if that’s what it takes, oh well, but I think that strategy risked cutting them off at the knees in multiple ways.

Yea I totally get your points, it would be a massive undertaking and very expensive for sure. However it’s sort of a sink or swim scenario and the landscape of the avaiation industry is in transition globally with the fuel prices rising and labor factors. B6 was a lot like the WN of the 80’s/90’s that was mostly centric to middle America and heavily in the southwest and West Coast.

What really continued the legacy of WN successes was the large build up on the east coast to complete total coverage for a national network. Granted they’ve had not the best success in certain markets like PHL, BOS and ATL they still manage to successfully operate many flights up and down the east coast with high frequency and decent loads.

This is exactly what B6 needs on the west coast to create a complete national network and not just be known an an east coast centric carrier. The lackluster attempt at doing this with very little frequencies from LGB is a complete failure. And no airport on the West has the gate space to offer B6 that they can build a sizeable operation. The only way to achieve this is by merging with a likeminded competitor as AS is basically the west coast version of B6. I think with the BIG3, a large WN in 4th, that all other carriers outside that grouping will need to really strategize and pair up to survive. F9 and NK may even have to tie the knot at some point to remain competitive with the evolving landscape in the industry.

B6 really needs a hub somewhere between the Appilacians and the Rockies if they want to be able to serve the whole country effectively. AS doesn’t really bring that.

FARmd90 · Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:52 pm

Could FAT work for them? The airport is growing fast and I dont think there is really one airline that has a complete control on it (except for maybe WN). The airport already has international capabilities which seems they would like. Would a FAT/ONT hub combination work for west coast? FAT for the northern connections and ONT for points south and across the boarder?

nine4nine · Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:57 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:

I don’t disagree. I’m just seeing a combination of a high acquisition cost, expensive pull downs in service, reduced revenue to pay for it as you have tossed the dominance in Alaska, have dozens of not-free regional jets to dispose of, stations to close, a regional to wind down, and a solid billion+ in fleet overhauls. That’s a lot of money to spend and debt to take on and not a whole ton to gain. Then there’s marketing, mgmt attention, employee integration, and all that stuff. Again, I guess if that’s what it takes, oh well, but I think that strategy risked cutting them off at the knees in multiple ways.

Yea I totally get your points, it would be a massive undertaking and very expensive for sure. However it’s sort of a sink or swim scenario and the landscape of the avaiation industry is in transition globally with the fuel prices rising and labor factors. B6 was a lot like the WN of the 80’s/90’s that was mostly centric to middle America and heavily in the southwest and West Coast.

What really continued the legacy of WN successes was the large build up on the east coast to complete total coverage for a national network. Granted they’ve had not the best success in certain markets like PHL, BOS and ATL they still manage to successfully operate many flights up and down the east coast with high frequency and decent loads.

This is exactly what B6 needs on the west coast to create a complete national network and not just be known an an east coast centric carrier. The lackluster attempt at doing this with very little frequencies from LGB is a complete failure. And no airport on the West has the gate space to offer B6 that they can build a sizeable operation. The only way to achieve this is by merging with a likeminded competitor as AS is basically the west coast version of B6. I think with the BIG3, a large WN in 4th, that all other carriers outside that grouping will need to really strategize and pair up to survive. F9 and NK may even have to tie the knot at some point to remain competitive with the evolving landscape in the industry.

B6 really needs a hub somewhere between the Appilacians and the Rockies if they want to be able to serve the whole country effectively. AS doesn’t really bring that.

Why do they need a middle America hub? They need a West and East coast hub that. You can feed to the smaller middle America cities. Most west coast is O&D as is JFK/BOS. FLL is a good connection hub for Caribbean/Latin America. Middle America offers nothing more than a connection hub that B6 does not need. Transcons and Caribbean/Latin America flights are where they are strong and what makes them money.

PlanesNTrains · Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:01 am

#Frontier

FA9295 · Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:02 am

nine4nine wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
nine4nine wrote:

Yea I totally get your points, it would be a massive undertaking and very expensive for sure. However it’s sort of a sink or swim scenario and the landscape of the avaiation industry is in transition globally with the fuel prices rising and labor factors. B6 was a lot like the WN of the 80’s/90’s that was mostly centric to middle America and heavily in the southwest and West Coast.

What really continued the legacy of WN successes was the large build up on the east coast to complete total coverage for a national network. Granted they’ve had not the best success in certain markets like PHL, BOS and ATL they still manage to successfully operate many flights up and down the east coast with high frequency and decent loads.

This is exactly what B6 needs on the west coast to create a complete national network and not just be known an an east coast centric carrier. The lackluster attempt at doing this with very little frequencies from LGB is a complete failure. And no airport on the West has the gate space to offer B6 that they can build a sizeable operation. The only way to achieve this is by merging with a likeminded competitor as AS is basically the west coast version of B6. I think with the BIG3, a large WN in 4th, that all other carriers outside that grouping will need to really strategize and pair up to survive. F9 and NK may even have to tie the knot at some point to remain competitive with the evolving landscape in the industry.

B6 really needs a hub somewhere between the Appilacians and the Rockies if they want to be able to serve the whole country effectively. AS doesn’t really bring that.

Why do they need a middle America hub? They need a West and East coast hub that. You can feed to the smaller middle America cities. Most west coast is O&D as is JFK/BOS. FLL is a good connection hub for Caribbean/Latin America. Middle America offers nothing more than a connection hub that B6 does not need. Transcons and Caribbean/Latin America flights are where they are strong and what makes them money.

The only middle-America airport that I think B6 could even have a chance of being successful at (as a major hub for them) would be AUS, but they don't seem too interested in that right now.

Every other major airport in middle-America has already been taken, and if they were to start this now, they would get outpaced very quickly.

cledaybuck · Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:24 am

nine4nine wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
nine4nine wrote:

Yea I totally get your points, it would be a massive undertaking and very expensive for sure. However it’s sort of a sink or swim scenario and the landscape of the avaiation industry is in transition globally with the fuel prices rising and labor factors. B6 was a lot like the WN of the 80’s/90’s that was mostly centric to middle America and heavily in the southwest and West Coast.

What really continued the legacy of WN successes was the large build up on the east coast to complete total coverage for a national network. Granted they’ve had not the best success in certain markets like PHL, BOS and ATL they still manage to successfully operate many flights up and down the east coast with high frequency and decent loads.

This is exactly what B6 needs on the west coast to create a complete national network and not just be known an an east coast centric carrier. The lackluster attempt at doing this with very little frequencies from LGB is a complete failure. And no airport on the West has the gate space to offer B6 that they can build a sizeable operation. The only way to achieve this is by merging with a likeminded competitor as AS is basically the west coast version of B6. I think with the BIG3, a large WN in 4th, that all other carriers outside that grouping will need to really strategize and pair up to survive. F9 and NK may even have to tie the knot at some point to remain competitive with the evolving landscape in the industry.

B6 really needs a hub somewhere between the Appilacians and the Rockies if they want to be able to serve the whole country effectively. AS doesn’t really bring that.

Why do they need a middle America hub? They need a West and East coast hub that. You can feed to the smaller middle America cities. Most west coast is O&D as is JFK/BOS. FLL is a good connection hub for Caribbean/Latin America. Middle America offers nothing more than a connection hub that B6 does not need. Transcons and Caribbean/Latin America flights are where they are strong and what makes them money.

Because you can’t effectively serve domestic traffic to the entire country with hubs just on the coast. To be clear, I am not saying they have to do this. If they can carve out their niche on the east coast that is just fine. AS has some something similar for years quite successfully on the west coast. But if they want to effectively serve the entire country, they would have to establish something somewhere in the middle of the country.

flyguy89 · Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:27 am

nine4nine wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
nine4nine wrote:

Yea I totally get your points, it would be a massive undertaking and very expensive for sure. However it’s sort of a sink or swim scenario and the landscape of the avaiation industry is in transition globally with the fuel prices rising and labor factors. B6 was a lot like the WN of the 80’s/90’s that was mostly centric to middle America and heavily in the southwest and West Coast.

What really continued the legacy of WN successes was the large build up on the east coast to complete total coverage for a national network. Granted they’ve had not the best success in certain markets like PHL, BOS and ATL they still manage to successfully operate many flights up and down the east coast with high frequency and decent loads.

This is exactly what B6 needs on the west coast to create a complete national network and not just be known an an east coast centric carrier. The lackluster attempt at doing this with very little frequencies from LGB is a complete failure. And no airport on the West has the gate space to offer B6 that they can build a sizeable operation. The only way to achieve this is by merging with a likeminded competitor as AS is basically the west coast version of B6. I think with the BIG3, a large WN in 4th, that all other carriers outside that grouping will need to really strategize and pair up to survive. F9 and NK may even have to tie the knot at some point to remain competitive with the evolving landscape in the industry.

B6 really needs a hub somewhere between the Appilacians and the Rockies if they want to be able to serve the whole country effectively. AS doesn’t really bring that.

Why do they need a middle America hub? They need a West and East coast hub that. You can feed to the smaller middle America cities. Most west coast is O&D as is JFK/BOS. FLL is a good connection hub for Caribbean/Latin America. Middle America offers nothing more than a connection hub that B6 does not need. Transcons and Caribbean/Latin America flights are where they are strong and what makes them money.

How much more can they realistically grow with their current network though? They indeed have a strong presence in some of the most important markets in the country, but they don't really do any point-to-point and their "hubs" are now also facing encroachment from both legacies and other LCCs. I don't know that a middle America hub is necessarily the answer, but it's one option that could provide some growth opportunity and the ability to serve markets that may not work from BOS, JFK or FLL.

Having said that, IMHO I think the ship has sailed on that option. It wasn't but 5 years ago that there were solid-size markets between that coasts that were ripe for the picking. NK, G4 and F9 had yet to tap the likes of IND, CMH, CVG, AUS, MCI and RDU. However now LCCs and ULCCs are now fully entrenched in most of those markets and I don't see how it would now be appealing for B6 to go in and fight an uphill battle in those cities (unless they decide to serve BOS, JFK and/or FLL).

cledaybuck · Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:28 am

FARmd90 wrote:
Could FAT work for them? The airport is growing fast and I dont think there is really one airline that has a complete control on it (except for maybe WN). The airport already has international capabilities which seems they would like. Would a FAT/ONT hub combination work for west coast? FAT for the northern connections and ONT for points south and across the boarder?

WN doesn’t even serve FAT.

fastmover · Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:48 am

cledaybuck wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
B6 really needs a hub somewhere between the Appilacians and the Rockies if they want to be able to serve the whole country effectively. AS doesn’t really bring that.

Why do they need a middle America hub? They need a West and East coast hub that. You can feed to the smaller middle America cities. Most west coast is O&D as is JFK/BOS. FLL is a good connection hub for Caribbean/Latin America. Middle America offers nothing more than a connection hub that B6 does not need. Transcons and Caribbean/Latin America flights are where they are strong and what makes them money.
Because you can’t effectively serve domestic traffic to the entire country with hubs just on the coast. To be clear, I am not saying they have to do this. If they can carve out their niche on the east coast that is just fine. AS has some something similar for years quite successfully on the west coast. But if they want to effectively serve the entire country, they would have to establish something somewhere in the middle of the country.

If they can carve out a niche on the east coast?
What do you think they have done?

werdywerd · Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:54 am

Everyone is thinking wild and crazy thoughts about mergers and such for no reason lol.

The Boston announcement is 99% for sure going to be the Europe announcement, most likely BOS to London and BOS to Ireland or France on the A321LR

We have been hearing about this for years, no surprises here.

cledaybuck · Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:03 am

fastmover wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
nine4nine wrote:

Why do they need a middle America hub? They need a West and East coast hub that. You can feed to the smaller middle America cities. Most west coast is O&D as is JFK/BOS. FLL is a good connection hub for Caribbean/Latin America. Middle America offers nothing more than a connection hub that B6 does not need. Transcons and Caribbean/Latin America flights are where they are strong and what makes them money.
Because you can’t effectively serve domestic traffic to the entire country with hubs just on the coast. To be clear, I am not saying they have to do this. If they can carve out their niche on the east coast that is just fine. AS has some something similar for years quite successfully on the west coast. But if they want to effectively serve the entire country, they would have to establish something somewhere in the middle of the country.

If they can carve out a niche on the east coast?
What do you think they have done?

They have carved out a nice niche to take northeasterners where they want to go on vacation. It just seems like they aspire to be more. Or maybe anet just wants them to be more.

cledaybuck · Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:05 am

werdywerd wrote:
Everyone is thinking wild and crazy thoughts about mergers and such for no reason lol.

The Boston announcement is 99% for sure going to be the Europe announcement, most likely BOS to London and BOS to Ireland or France on the A321LR

We have been hearing about this for years, no surprises here.

While BOS to Europe seems like a next logical step, 99% is way too high for a company as conservative as B6.

Blueknows · Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:13 am

B6 and Ha make perfect sense. Have you looked at HA first class. It’s basicly mint in Ha color pallet. Both airlines run the same aircraft witch would mean easy integration. B6 already loads and boards Ha aircraft in multiple cities. B6 would get west coast cities they’ve been trying to get. Everyone keeps saying LAX...LAX. B6 is going to go full throttle in ONT. Let’s not forget that California pacific airlines is starting up Nov 1st. California market is going to start to change very soon. B6 wants to focus on lieusre travel and hotels and other add ones to create revenue. They do own a piece of the new TWA hotel being built outside T5. HA could help it’s jetblue vacations brand. Hawaiian vacation are big money. B6 is not interested in connecting you from point A TO B. They designed for New Yorkers and Bostonians to go on vacation. But when you chase the dollar you sometimes end up in PIT/MSP/CLE

tphuang · Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:45 am

flyguy89 wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
B6 really needs a hub somewhere between the Appilacians and the Rockies if they want to be able to serve the whole country effectively. AS doesn’t really bring that.

Why do they need a middle America hub? They need a West and East coast hub that. You can feed to the smaller middle America cities. Most west coast is O&D as is JFK/BOS. FLL is a good connection hub for Caribbean/Latin America. Middle America offers nothing more than a connection hub that B6 does not need. Transcons and Caribbean/Latin America flights are where they are strong and what makes them money.

How much more can they realistically grow with their current network though? They indeed have a strong presence in some of the most important markets in the country, but they don't really do any point-to-point and their "hubs" are now also facing encroachment from both legacies and other LCCs. I don't know that a middle America hub is necessarily the answer, but it's one option that could provide some growth opportunity and the ability to serve markets that may not work from BOS, JFK or FLL.

Having said that, IMHO I think the ship has sailed on that option. It wasn't but 5 years ago that there were solid-size markets between that coasts that were ripe for the picking. NK, G4 and F9 had yet to tap the likes of IND, CMH, CVG, AUS, MCI and RDU. However now LCCs and ULCCs are now fully entrenched in most of those markets and I don't see how it would now be appealing for B6 to go in and fight an uphill battle in those cities (unless they decide to serve BOS, JFK and/or FLL).

Here is the thing about BOS, JFK and FLL. They've always faced those competition. Competition hasn't really changes outside of maybe DL getting more active at BOS. But other than that, they've always had to make money in heavy competition. It's not a AS situation where they suddenly woke up with a big legacy airline encroaching on their home base. B6 will be fine. All this talk of B6 in trouble at BOS is nonsense. They've had to deal with Delta with all the slots at LGA and JFK for years and have solidified their position there despite Delta throwing billions in the market.

I do agree that they missed the ball on some markets. AUS would've been a place to go full throttle back in 2010. RDU would've been a great place to invest in before DL started their build up there. Gates at SFO/LAX that became available to VX would've been available to B6 had they not spent so much time at secondary airports. Over time, they realized that with their escalating cost, they need to go where the money is. But they also made some correct decisions in building up BOS and FLL. At this point, they don't have the luxury to expand into new markets. We can always figure out where they can expand after they actually finish building up their current focus cities. I'm guessing by then, they might get a few more gates at LAX at minimum.

werdywerd wrote:
Everyone is thinking wild and crazy thoughts about mergers and such for no reason lol.

The Boston announcement is 99% for sure going to be the Europe announcement, most likely BOS to London and BOS to Ireland or France on the A321LR

We have been hearing about this for years, no surprises here.

That would definitely make my week more than any merger with HA could.

nine4nine wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
So decimate Alaska intrastate flying, regional ops, and refit hundreds of Alaska aircraft inside and out. Cha-Ching.

If you want to sit at the poker table with the others you gotta have a stack of chips, a good hand, a good strategy or you fold. So yes cha Ching is right. You take the risk, you cut the waste and focus on where the $$ is and you survive or you eventually disappear either through buyout or BK.

here is the thing, B6 would be lucky to have all the monopolies of Alaska flying that AS has. That stuff make money. AS prints money during summer season on those SEA/PDX-ANC flights. The closest B6 has are its DR flights and even those have pretty significant legacy competition.

PlanesNTrains · Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:46 am

Blueknows wrote:
B6 and Ha make perfect sense. Have you looked at HA first class. It’s basicly mint in Ha color pallet. Both airlines run the same aircraft witch would mean easy integration. B6 already loads and boards Ha aircraft in multiple cities. B6 would get west coast cities they’ve been trying to get. Everyone keeps saying LAX...LAX. B6 is going to go full throttle in ONT. Let’s not forget that California pacific airlines is starting up Nov 1st. California market is going to start to change very soon. B6 wants to focus on lieusre travel and hotels and other add ones to create revenue. They do own a piece of the new TWA hotel being built outside T5. HA could help it’s jetblue vacations brand. Hawaiian vacation are big money. B6 is not interested in connecting you from point A TO B. They designed for New Yorkers and Bostonians to go on vacation. But when you chase the dollar you sometimes end up in PIT/MSP/CLE

Whattity-whooty-whatty?

CobaltScar · Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:27 am

What about MKE? or is it basically the MEM of the north? (i.e. too poor to bother with as a hub)

nine4nine · Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:49 am

Blueknows wrote:
B6 and Ha make perfect sense. Have you looked at HA first class. It’s basicly mint in Ha color pallet. Both airlines run the same aircraft witch would mean easy integration. B6 already loads and boards Ha aircraft in multiple cities. B6 would get west coast cities they’ve been trying to get. Everyone keeps saying LAX...LAX. B6 is going to go full throttle in ONT. Let’s not forget that California pacific airlines is starting up Nov 1st. California market is going to start to change very soon. B6 wants to focus on lieusre travel and hotels and other add ones to create revenue. They do own a piece of the new TWA hotel being built outside T5. HA could help it’s jetblue vacations brand. Hawaiian vacation are big money. B6 is not interested in connecting you from point A TO B. They designed for New Yorkers and Bostonians to go on vacation. But when you chase the dollar you sometimes end up in PIT/MSP/CLE

Please people stop with the HA/B6 stuff. Never gonna happen. It’s not worth the breath for either of the two. The have a great partnership and B6 does the ground handling at some stations, that’s the extent of it. HA offers ZERO to B6 in any type of buyout or merger.

B6 is never going to go “full throttle” at ONT. ONT is stationed in a highly impoverished/lower income area of the LA basin that is one of the areas most high hit my any market fluctuations.

California Pacific has been trying to get something going for years. If and when they start is going to have little to no impact on California service or carriers serving California.

I do t h derstamd what the B6 owned TWA Hotel at JFK has to do with anything or why it makes sense for an HA merger.

And outside of the one daily JFK/BOS-HNL you mention Bostonians and New Yorkers like they’re vacations, true but Bermuda and the Carribean are only 2 plus hours and about $99-200 RT. Fare. What benefit is a 10+ hour $850RT fare to those markets that would make HA lucrative to an east coast carrier?

nine4nine · Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:02 am

CobaltScar wrote:
What about MKE? or is it basically the MEM of the north? (i.e. too poor to bother with as a hub)

People please stop with the MKE stuff. MKE is not an O&D destination nor is it placed in a geographically positive location for even any network connections unless they were all connecting to Canada or the NE and B6 does not serve Canada. B6’s most profitable runs are on nonstop transcons, so a connection in MKE is pretty stupid.

B6 is a hub and spoke airline not a point to point carrier. They will make a move eventually that will have a hub maybe two on the west coast to be able to build onto the profitable east/west transcons. They offer a much better product than each of the majors in all fare classes so they can really capitalize on that with gained frequencies.

B752OS · Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:17 pm

I spoke with an FA in the galley of my MSY-BOS flight yesterday and she told me that there are strong rumors DL will be acquiring B6. That's what this big announcement in Boston will be about. Then DL will either have a dominant position, or a very strong position in Boston, New York, Atlanta, Raleigh/Durham, Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Los Angeles, Orlando, Seattle, Salt Lake City and Fort Lauderdale/South Florida.

N757ST · Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:53 pm

B752OS wrote:
I spoke with an FA in the galley of my MSY-BOS flight yesterday and she told me that there are strong rumors DL will be acquiring B6. That's what this big announcement in Boston will be about. Then DL will either have a dominant position, or a very strong position in Boston, New York, Atlanta, Raleigh/Durham, Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Los Angeles, Orlando, Seattle, Salt Lake City and Fort Lauderdale/South Florida.

Your first mistake was listening to a flight attendant’s rumor.

Delta will not acquire jetblue. Period.... and if there is an announcement from Boston ( I haven’t heard that there is, only speculation there might be an announcement because a couple EVPs will be there), that announcement will NOT be a merger. That isn’t how mergers are ever announced.

Plus, if you announce a merger you do it from your or their main headquarters, not a random hub city.

jfklganyc · Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:14 pm

FAs are the second worst source of rumors in industry.

Pilots are the absolute worst.

If you want a rumor that may have a semblance of truth...middle manager of gate agents.

Every now and then they have a meeting with their boss and things slip out. they have their pulse on things better than anyone else on the line.

fastmover · Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:09 pm

[photoid][/photoid]

jfklganyc wrote:
FAs are the second worst source of rumors in industry.

Pilots are the absolute worst.

If you want a rumor that may have a semblance of truth...middle manager of gate agents.

Every now and then they have a meeting with their boss and things slip out. they have their pulse on things better than anyone else on the line.

Exactly. Delta no way ever unless they were just buying parts of a dead jetblue.
Yeah the leadership team is in Boston but they do this often in different hubs it’s called a pocket session.
The guy who said there will be a major announcement only has a few posts and thinks we should merge with HA because of our vacation side. Could there be an announcement sure but there are little if any rumors about it now. We were told to expect a 321 decision in September but that didn’t happen. Who knows these days.

B752OS · Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:43 pm

I forgot to put an /s at the end of my post. Tongue in cheek folks.

flyfresno · Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:17 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
FARmd90 wrote:
Could FAT work for them? The airport is growing fast and I dont think there is really one airline that has a complete control on it (except for maybe WN). The airport already has international capabilities which seems they would like. Would a FAT/ONT hub combination work for west coast? FAT for the northern connections and ONT for points south and across the boarder?

WN doesn’t even serve FAT.

4X or so per week could work FAT-JFK, especially in the summer, but an A320 might still be too much airplane initially. If they end up getting the A220, that might be a good aircraft to develop the route, especially if they can capture BOS/IAD connections from FAT, as well as more of the NE to Yosemite market. I am amazed at how many people still fly into SFO or other Bay Area airports and then fight traffic to get to Yosemite or the rest of the Sierra; more of those people might fly straight to FAT if the fares are competitive and there is a non-stop from the NE to FAT.

jplatts · Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:27 pm

flyfresno wrote:
4X or so per week could work FAT-JFK, especially in the summer, but an A320 might still be too much airplane initially. If they end up getting the A220, that might be a good aircraft to develop the route, especially if they can capture BOS/IAD connections from FAT, as well as more of the NE to Yosemite market. I am amazed at how many people still fly into SFO or other Bay Area airports and then fight traffic to get to Yosemite or the rest of the Sierra; more of those people might fly straight to FAT if the fares are competitive and there is a non-stop from the NE to FAT.

B6 has already announced that it is going to be pulling out of IAD on January 7, 2019, and B6 also doesn't serve BWI or DCA nonstop from JFK.

cledaybuck · Sat Oct 20, 2018 7:04 pm

nine4nine wrote:
CobaltScar wrote:
What about MKE? or is it basically the MEM of the north? (i.e. too poor to bother with as a hub)

People please stop with the MKE stuff. MKE is not an O&D destination nor is it placed in a geographically positive location for even any network connections unless they were all connecting to Canada or the NE and B6 does not serve Canada. B6’s most profitable runs are on nonstop transcons, so a connection in MKE is pretty stupid.

B6 is a hub and spoke airline not a point to point carrier. They will make a move eventually that will have a hub maybe two on the west coast to be able to build onto the profitable east/west transcons. They offer a much better product than each of the majors in all fare classes so they can really capitalize on that with gained frequencies.

I don’t think I would call B6 a hub and spoke airline. FLL, maybe, but JFK and BOS are very much geared towards local traffic.

Blueknows · Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:33 pm

First of all B6 is not a spoke and hub airline. I’ve been in the industry for over 20 years. B6 has focus cities and is not in he business of connecting customer. California Pacific Airlines starts service in November. ONT is the fastest growing airport in the country. B6 has JETBLUE TECH COMPANY in Sfo. The also have JETBLUE VACATIONS. Witch is based in fll. Maybe if you paid attention to last earnings you wouldn’t have to make stuff up.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 30177.html

http://www.areadevelopment.com/newsItem ... rida.shtml

https://www.travelweekly.com/In-the-Hot ... s-Amy-Burr

PlanesNTrains · Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:43 pm

Blueknows wrote:
First of all B6 is not a spoke and hub airline. I’ve been in the industry for over 20 years. B6 has focus cities and is not in he business of connecting customer. California Pacific Airlines starts service in November. ONT is the fastest growing airport in the country. B6 has JETBLUE TECH COMPANY in Sfo. The also have JETBLUE VACATIONS. Witch is based in fll. Maybe if you paid attention to last earnings you wouldn’t have to make stuff up.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 30177.html

http://www.areadevelopment.com/newsItem ... rida.shtml

https://www.travelweekly.com/In-the-Hot ... s-Amy-Burr

Not a hub and spoke airline..........Not in the business of connecting customers.......... That European expansion is going to be about O&D..........ONT is the new LAX........... California Pacific is relevant to JetBlue...........

Sorry - just taking notes for later.

Blueknows · Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:51 pm

Ow here you go if your taking notes

https://www.thecoastnews.com/calif-paci ... ing-nov-1/

Ow and B6 also owns part of jetsuitex. You can now get trueblue points and book through Jetblue.com

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 20796.html

PlanesNTrains · Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:04 pm

Blueknows wrote:
Ow here you go if your taking notes

https://www.thecoastnews.com/calif-paci ... ing-nov-1/

Ow and B6 also owns part of jetsuitex. You can now get trueblue points and book through Jetblue.com

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 20796.html

This isn’t new information. What conclusions about JetBlue heading to ONT, merging with HA, or not being a hub and spoke airline am I to gleen from these pieces?

Blueknows · Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:16 pm

They have never been a spoke and hub airline. I know this for a fact, and B6 is shedding dead weight and moving flights to profitable vacation spots. Just wait till next week you’ll see

PlanesNTrains · Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:26 pm

Blueknows wrote:
They have never been a spoke and hub airline. I know this for a fact, and B6 is shedding dead weight and moving flights to profitable vacation spots. Just wait till next week you’ll see

No offense but talking cryptically and tying random things together as some sort of discussion point is starting to give me a headache. I’m happy to defer to your final thoughts.

flyguy89 · Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:17 pm

tphuang wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
nine4nine wrote:

Why do they need a middle America hub? They need a West and East coast hub that. You can feed to the smaller middle America cities. Most west coast is O&D as is JFK/BOS. FLL is a good connection hub for Caribbean/Latin America. Middle America offers nothing more than a connection hub that B6 does not need. Transcons and Caribbean/Latin America flights are where they are strong and what makes them money.

How much more can they realistically grow with their current network though? They indeed have a strong presence in some of the most important markets in the country, but they don't really do any point-to-point and their "hubs" are now also facing encroachment from both legacies and other LCCs. I don't know that a middle America hub is necessarily the answer, but it's one option that could provide some growth opportunity and the ability to serve markets that may not work from BOS, JFK or FLL.

Having said that, IMHO I think the ship has sailed on that option. It wasn't but 5 years ago that there were solid-size markets between that coasts that were ripe for the picking. NK, G4 and F9 had yet to tap the likes of IND, CMH, CVG, AUS, MCI and RDU. However now LCCs and ULCCs are now fully entrenched in most of those markets and I don't see how it would now be appealing for B6 to go in and fight an uphill battle in those cities (unless they decide to serve BOS, JFK and/or FLL).

Here is the thing about BOS, JFK and FLL. They've always faced those competition. Competition hasn't really changes outside of maybe DL getting more active at BOS. But other than that, they've always had to make money in heavy competition. It's not a AS situation where they suddenly woke up with a big legacy airline encroaching on their home base. B6 will be fine. All this talk of B6 in trouble at BOS is nonsense. They've had to deal with Delta with all the slots at LGA and JFK for years and have solidified their position there despite Delta throwing billions in the market.

True that they've always had competitive headwinds in those markets, but their cost advantage has shrunk. Their costs have crept up while their competitors' have gone down. In this scenario, a larger portfolio of "fortress" less-competitive routes/markets would be helpful.

MIflyer12 · Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:27 pm

tphuang wrote:
They've had to deal with Delta with all the slots at LGA and JFK for years and have solidified their position there despite Delta throwing billions in the market.

United lost more points of share in NYC than B6 did 2012-2017, but B6 lost share while Delta gained 1.8 points of share. See the year-end PANYNJ reports.

tphuang · Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:01 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
They've had to deal with Delta with all the slots at LGA and JFK for years and have solidified their position there despite Delta throwing billions in the market.

United lost more points of share in NYC than B6 did 2012-2017, but B6 lost share while Delta gained 1.8 points of share. See the year-end PANYNJ reports.

That’s true but that’s due to delta doing a lot of upgauging. JetBlue is running out of places to upgauge. They are canceling a bunch of e90 flights but there are only so many of them left that they can replace.

N757ST · Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:47 pm

FA9295 wrote:
SumChristianus wrote:
A second daily flight JFK-DEN was just added for fall, not sure if its new though.

Doesn't surprise me. They've had that route on MINT for quite awhile now (the second flight also appears to be on MINT as well), so it must be doing pretty well.

Neither flight is Mint, though they might be 321s.

Blueknows · Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:12 am

Corporate earnings call 1-2pm Wednesday and They will have company pocket session with employees on Thursday in BOS. Let’s see what going to happen.

AA94 · Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:16 pm

Blueknows wrote:
Corporate earnings call 1-2pm Wednesday and They will have company pocket session with employees on Thursday in BOS. Let’s see what going to happen.

Earnings call is 10AM Tuesday. I think the tinfoil hat is starting to affect your brain function.

fastmover · Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:37 pm

Blueknows wrote:
Corporate earnings call 1-2pm Wednesday and They will have company pocket session with employees on Thursday in BOS. Let’s see what going to happen.

I hope you will be back on when there is no major announcement.

The call will probably be weak numbers, with some talk about ROIC and delivering “superior margins” (in 2020 maybe) I am sure Wall St will walk all over them as always. Still no decision on the Europe stuff but they think they can be a disrupter (if they ever go). Talk about the new basic economy idea and some stuff about focusing growth in the hubs. Lots of talk about an exciting plan for the future but they won’t say what it is.

Sorry I’m a little pessimistic about this one, along with a bunch of employees. (Who don’t work at HQ)

I honestly hope to be wrong, I would love to see a vision at jetblue other than cutting costs.

tphuang · Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:58 pm

On the subject of JFK-DEN. it's an interesting example of how well all core A321 can improve the economics of a route, considering that B6 has very little presence in DEN and minimal frequency here
CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM Vs B6
JFKDEN 1626 AA 006070 202.52 183.48 275.11 79.22% 158.7 83.13% 152.53 0.0938 97.08%
JFKDEN 1626 B6 036200 177.23 176.86 291.63 99.68% 193.1 88.83% 157.12 0.0966 100.00%
JFKDEN 1626 DL 070067 211.16 209.10 304.87 97.84% 165.9 89.08% 186.27 0.1146 118.56%
LGADEN 1620 DL 048869 222.94 219.43 351.84 97.35% 158.1 86.58% 189.98 0.1173 N/A
LGADEN 1620 F9 027036 101.28 101.25 112.24 99.74% 182.1 91.10% 092.24 0.0569 N/A
LGADEN 1620 UA 152731 256.77 256.26 355.25 99.48% 162.4 90.35% 231.52 0.1429 N/A
LGADEN 1620 WN 056303 204.76 203.89 235.46 97.24% 154.4 91.83% 187.22 0.1156 N/A
BOSDEN 1754 B6 043629 219.54 219.34 305.94 99.76% 150.6 84.47% 185.28 0.1056
JFKSJU 1598 B6 134135 181.27 180.93 259.72 99.57% 189.8 86.07% 155.72 0.0974

Here is a comparison from Q2. On the surface, the yield doesn't look great, but when you factor in that this is a red-eye coming back and that it's mostly using 200 seater, the number starts to look a lot better. My assumption is that A321 all-core has at least 20% CASM advantage over 150 seat A320s. Note, their yield on BOS-DEN is 18% higher on a slightly longer flight. So, it's quite likely JFK-DEN is generating better margin than BOS-DEN. And when compared to WN on LGA-DEN, that yield is about 19% higher. On average B6/WN have similar cost levels, so using A321 allows to generate similar margin to WN on a route where LGA has obvious advantages. They are also probably quite a bit more profitable than DL on this route given that DL is running much lower capacity aircraft and generally have much higher costs. Another thing of note is that JFK-DEN has about the same yield as a similar length JFK-SJU route, which is also mostly A321. Now this was a very weak quarter for SJU, but still good sign that DEN is doing well.

This summer, they have been running twice daily from probably late June to Sep/Oct (I didn't check the end date). Next year, they are going double daily by the start of May. So I think it's a good indication that adding a daytime A321 in summer time brings in pretty good numbers. Will be interested in checking Q3 numbers to see where they are.

When I see numbers like this, it really makes me wonder if they can put A321s on similar routes (1200+ miles and has LGA competition with strong legacy presence).

One example to look at is HOU
CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM
JFKHOU 1428 B6 023066 218.71 218.71 000.00 100.00% 144.5 87.70% 191.82 0.1343
LGAIAH 1416 UA 162431 293.00 291.42 489.59 99.20% 138.4 86.88% 253.20 0.1788
LGAIAH 1416 YX 045064 278.15 277.79 301.79 98.47% 73.80 77.07% 214.09 0.1512
LGAHOU 1428 WN 064215 218.36 219.00 212.69 89.90% 150.2 88.16% 193.06 0.1352
Another place that B6 does surprisingly well. Note, this one has much higher yield than JFK-DEN but it is running mostly a A320 with no-red eye. But this is a route with clearly a lot of demand and no competition on JFK-HOU. In fact, B6 generates slightly higher yield here than JFK-AUS, which is a longer flight. And it does significantly better than BOS-HOU. This should be a route that can support A321 capacity and possibly another daily frequency.

I keep getting told by others that JFK to middle of the country within perimeter doesn't work, but I think the evidence supports that high volume routes within perimeter do work.

Which brings to my next pet peeve Dallas. Currently, B6 runs a very meager operation to DFW with just 2 flights from BOS. It's hard to be competitive when you have only 2 flights with no alternative routes in case of IRROPs. Looking at the data, I find it hard to believe why they can't do JFK-DFW. And it's clearly one of their largest holes out of JFK.
CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM
JFKDFW 1391 9E 009729 236.18 232.71 385.73 97.73% 76.00 85.36% 198.65 0.1428
JFKDFW 1391 AA 032875 255.70 241.64 337.95 85.41% 161.8 86.46% 208.92 0.1502
JFKDFW 1391 DL 020112 196.03 188.81 302.13 93.63% 132.1 85.04% 160.56 0.1154
BOSDFW 1562 AA 192166 252.97 248.89 346.20 95.81% 172.1 89.59% 222.98 0.1428
BOSDFW 1562 B6 047181 178.39 178.39 000.00 100.00% 149.1 88.65% 158.14 0.1012
BOSDFW 1562 NK 019629 066.70 065.54 083.72 93.58% 179.2 80.53% 052.78 0.0338
LGADFW 1389 AA 293604 234.71 232.66 313.98 97.48% 178.0 87.99% 204.71 0.1474
LGADFW 1389 DL 020901 200.33 199.32 217.54 94.46% 132.0 84.24% 167.91 0.1209
LGADFW 1389 NK 035634 065.07 064.88 081.79 98.88% 215.9 90.70% 058.84 0.0424
LGADFW 1389 YX 053922 233.11 232.29 269.58 97.81% 71.00 85.35% 198.27 0.1427

The difference here is that there are some competition on JFK-DFW, but it's also a much larger market (twice as many boarded on NYC-DFW/DAL vs NYC-IAH/HOU). They've made CLT/ATL/DEN/HOU work, there is really nothing about DFW that should make it harder than those cities. DEN also has WN and a dominant legacy + ULCC (F9) competition. A daytime all-core A321 should have the economics to make this work.

jplatts · Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:09 pm

tphuang wrote:
Which brings to my next pet peeve Dallas. Currently, B6 runs a very meager operation to DFW with just 2 flights from BOS. It's hard to be competitive when you have only 2 flights with no alternative routes in case of IRROPs. Looking at the data, I find it hard to believe why they can't do JFK-DFW. And it's clearly one of their largest holes out of JFK.
CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM
JFKDFW 1391 9E 009729 236.18 232.71 385.73 97.73% 76.00 85.36% 198.65 0.1428
JFKDFW 1391 AA 032875 255.70 241.64 337.95 85.41% 161.8 86.46% 208.92 0.1502
JFKDFW 1391 DL 020112 196.03 188.81 302.13 93.63% 132.1 85.04% 160.56 0.1154
BOSDFW 1562 AA 192166 252.97 248.89 346.20 95.81% 172.1 89.59% 222.98 0.1428
BOSDFW 1562 B6 047181 178.39 178.39 000.00 100.00% 149.1 88.65% 158.14 0.1012
BOSDFW 1562 NK 019629 066.70 065.54 083.72 93.58% 179.2 80.53% 052.78 0.0338
LGADFW 1389 AA 293604 234.71 232.66 313.98 97.48% 178.0 87.99% 204.71 0.1474
LGADFW 1389 DL 020901 200.33 199.32 217.54 94.46% 132.0 84.24% 167.91 0.1209
LGADFW 1389 NK 035634 065.07 064.88 081.79 98.88% 215.9 90.70% 058.84 0.0424
LGADFW 1389 YX 053922 233.11 232.29 269.58 97.81% 71.00 85.35% 198.27 0.1427

The difference here is that there are some competition on JFK-DFW, but it's also a much larger market (twice as many boarded on NYC-DFW/DAL vs NYC-IAH/HOU). They've made CLT/ATL/DEN/HOU work, there is really nothing about DFW that should make it harder than those cities. DEN also has WN and a dominant legacy + ULCC (F9) competition. A daytime all-core A321 should have the economics to make this work.

I agree that B6 could add DFW-JFK nonstop service, and there are also some NYC travelers who prefer to fly on B6 over WN.

In Dallas, WN also currently has nonstop service to LGA from DAL, UA and AA both also currently have nonstop service to EWR from DFW, and AS also currently has nonstop service to LGA from DAL (even though AS is discontinuing DAL-LGA nonstop service on October 27th).

Could you please list the statistics for DAL-LGA and DFW-EWR? The DAL-LGA and DFW-EWR city pairs also need to be considered when looking at Dallas to NYC in addition to DFW-LGA and DFW-JFK.

tphuang · Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:23 pm

jplatts wrote:
I agree that B6 could add DFW-JFK nonstop service, and there are also some NYC travelers who prefer to fly on B6 over WN.

In Dallas, WN also currently has nonstop service to LGA from DAL, UA and AA both also currently have nonstop service to EWR from DFW, and AS also currently has nonstop service to LGA from DAL (even though AS is discontinuing DAL-LGA nonstop service on October 27th).

Could you please list the statistics for DAL-LGA and DFW-EWR? The DAL-LGA and DFW-EWR city pairs also need to be considered when looking at Dallas to NYC in addition to DFW-LGA and DFW-JFK.

CityPair Dist CarrierBoard AvgFare NSFare ConnFare % NS SeatPerFlight LF Yield PRASM
LGADAL 1381 OO 42923 163.27 163.3 91.00 99.95% 76.00 89.50% 146.16 0.1058
LGADAL 1381 WN 93525 172.91 170.87 227.48 96.39% 147.7 91.91% 157.05 0.1137
EWRDFW 1372 AA 116506 278.55 276.08 372.92 97.45% 160.0 89.45% 246.97 0.18
EWRDFW 1372 UA 79253 287.01 284.71 401.0 98.02% 154.9 84.14% 239.55 0.1746
EWRDFW 1372 YX 15053 361.72 362.73 304.54 98.27% 73.10 90.72% 329.08 0.2399

EWR-DFW is very high yielding. LGA-DAL had too much competition. I think B6 probably would get a yield that's around what WN gets.

tphuang · Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:00 pm

fastmover wrote:

I hope you will be back on when there is no major announcement.

The call will probably be weak numbers, with some talk about ROIC and delivering “superior margins” (in 2020 maybe) I am sure Wall St will walk all over them as always. Still no decision on the Europe stuff but they think they can be a disrupter (if they ever go). Talk about the new basic economy idea and some stuff about focusing growth in the hubs. Lots of talk about an exciting plan for the future but they won’t say what it is.

Sorry I’m a little pessimistic about this one, along with a bunch of employees. (Who don’t work at HQ)

I honestly hope to be wrong, I would love to see a vision at jetblue other than cutting costs.

For an airline that hasn't made up its mind, it sure talks about it a lot.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tic-travel

Let's see if we get anything this week. I'm expecting a couple of more cities to be cut at bare minimum.

737307 · Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:12 pm

tphuang wrote:
For an airline that hasn't made up its mind, it sure talks about it a lot.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tic-travel

Let's see if we get anything this week. I'm expecting a couple of more cities to be cut at bare minimum.

JetBlue wrote:
Blah blah blah, blah BLAH BLaH, blah blah, blAh, blAH, BlAh, BLAh.

DeltaRules · Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:27 am

chepos wrote:
So what is PSE MCO going to, 3 daily? They are at double daily during high season already.

Seriously, that and BQN-MCO. Are they going to add a daylight flight to either?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net