Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2018/2019

nine4nine · Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:52 am

A lot of good news coming out of BUR recently after years of stagnant growth and new destinations.

B6- Adds 2nd JFK, introduces BOS

Probably more to come from B6 as the LGB drawdown moves forward. Excited to fly the BOS route.

WN- Adds MDW and HOU. Bringing a total of 12 destinations served by WN from BUR

Chicago is a great add along with Houston. HOU will be great as a gateway for 1 stop international service from BUR to Mexico/Caribbean/and Latin America.

Would be great to see DL bring back ATL and more AS adds as they dig in on the CA front.

Anyone think we may see the eventual entry of NK or F9?

FA9295 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:33 am

I'm surprised that F9 hasn't entered the market yet. I could see them successfully operating BUR-DEN and BUR-AUS.

Chemist · Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:32 am

So pleased to see this. It will be great to fly them to the Caribbean or Mexico and avoid LAX.

deltadudejg · Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:42 am

Does anyone know how their gate space usage is?

intotheair · Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:35 am

Would be nice if UA could get rid of the CRJs on DEN-BUR!

zrs70 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:51 am

Imagine if UA brought back the 767 bur-ord!

nine4nine · Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:10 pm

FA9295 wrote:
I'm surprised that F9 hasn't entered the market yet. I could see them successfully operating BUR-DEN and BUR-AUS.

You would think so. With 2nd return entries at both FAT and LGB it amazes me how they never jumped in the game here. They could really do they’re throw the dart at a map strategy and really carve out a niche market with zero competition.

jfklganyc · Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:20 pm

Is there enough room here for all of the B6 LGB operation?

nine4nine · Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:22 pm

zrs70 wrote:
Imagine if UA brought back the 767 bur-ord!

Wouldn’t that be awesome?!?! I have pix of it at BUR on my twitter account.

I’m really surprised UA has left such a stagnant presence at BUR the past decade especially holding the majority of terminal B and 4 of its gates. It was a non-mainlime station seeing only CRJ ops. Before that we saw a nice mix of 737s, A320/19’s, 757 and 727 operations. Good to see the return of partial mainline again with return of 737s and A320 family aircraft. I was always hoping they would bring back ORD, introduce IAH and especially EWR given the success of Yields by B6 on the JFK market. BUR could really use a strong carrier with premium offerings on transcon for the Hollywood crowd.

FYI some may not know, but UA was founded at BUR. The airport was actually called United Air Terminal for a period of time I believe in the early 1930’s, until anti-trust laws took care of that.

nine4nine · Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:31 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Is there enough room here for all of the B6 LGB operation?

T answer your question, Yes! Very low useage on some gates a moajority of the day especially the AA and DL gates which typically see at most 2-3 sometimes up to 4 at peak daily flights. Until the 2nd JFK flight and BOS start the gate only sees 1 flight at gate A8. Gate A9 is usually empty and can park an A321 aircraft along with gate B4 which can park a 757/762.

There is a rumored upcoming gate reassignment with B6 taking B1-B4 and shared use on B5 with AS.

JayWings · Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:37 pm

Any progress on the new terminal at BUR? That should help with airlines expanding their ops there!

Also I think BUR is one of the places that will start seeing the AS airbus service when AAG starts reassigning equipment later this summer! Be on the lookout for some LVX airbus equipment sometime soon?

nine4nine · Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:45 pm

JayWings wrote:
Any progress on the new terminal at BUR? That should help with airlines expanding their ops there!

Also I think BUR is one of the places that will start seeing the AS airbus service when AAG starts reassigning equipment later this summer! Be on the lookout for some LVX airbus equipment sometime soon?

Groundbreaking is supposed to start before years end with a 2022 completion. Environmental studies have been done and cleared. Just finalizing exterior terminal aesthetics with input from the community on that design aspect. I believe that to be done by July.

Yes I was curious on the AS metal going to A320 on CA (north/south) routes and reassignment of the 737’s on transcons and east/west.

NZ321 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:05 pm

A new terminal is great news. Will it replace or augment? Any ideas on size?

wnflyguy · Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:06 pm

Last I've heard WN will take A1-A7 AS gates A8 and Share Gate A9 with Hawaiian eventually something next year.
American B1 ,UNITED B2 & B3, JetBlue Gates B4 and B5.

Flyguy

jetero · Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:07 pm

NZ321 wrote:
A new terminal is great news. Will it replace or augment? Any ideas on size?

Replace.

See https://burreplacementterminal.com/

nine4nine · Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:32 pm

wnflyguy wrote:
Last I've heard WN will take A1-A7 AS gates A8 and Share Gate A9 with Hawaiian eventually something next year.
American B1 ,UNITED B2 & B3, JetBlue Gates B4 and B5.

Flyguy

Thx for sharing. I’ve noticed over the years you are usually really spot on with your posts.

I have heard the HA entry and possibly WN on Hawaii eventually as well. Kind of interesting to see if HA beats them to the punch there. I’d expect more WN adds in the future as well as LAX continues to add new destinations and more International service with no room to grow outside of Terminal 1.

I know other than a 73G BUR-HNL/OGG (operated by AQ) there would be performance issues on CEO models, but is that even relevant at this point with the NEO and MAX? Should be fairly easily done with 6886’ RWY I’d assume.

Have you heard where DL will end up in this mix?

Chemist · Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:50 pm

I know Aloha briefly flew BUR to the islands ten or fifteen years ago.

The new terminal is the same number of gates (14) due to NIMBY requirements, also still no jetways (which is fine with me - front and rear concurrent loading/unloading is faster). But bigger and further from the runways for safety. Will be located around where Lot A is now and the old Lockheed property.

phllax · Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:37 pm

wnflyguy wrote:
Last I've heard WN will take A1-A7 AS gates A8 and Share Gate A9 with Hawaiian eventually something next year.
American B1 ,UNITED B2 & B3, JetBlue Gates B4 and B5.

Flyguy

UA and DL have to stay together as they're both ground handled by the same agent.

I don't think a 321neo can get out of BUR without any sizeable weight restrictions.

wnflyguy · Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:00 pm

nine4nine wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
Last I've heard WN will take A1-A7 AS gates A8 and Share Gate A9 with Hawaiian eventually something next year.
American B1 ,UNITED B2 & B3, JetBlue Gates B4 and B5.

Flyguy

Thx for sharing. I’ve noticed over the years you are usually really spot on with your posts.

I have heard the HA entry and possibly WN on Hawaii eventually as well. Kind of interesting to see if HA beats them to the punch there. I’d expect more WN adds in the future as well as LAX continues to add new destinations and more International service with no room to grow outside of Terminal 1.

I know other than a 73G BUR-HNL/OGG (operated by AQ) there would be performance issues on CEO models, but is that even relevant at this point with the NEO and MAX? Should be fairly easily done with 6886’ RWY I’d assume.

Have you heard where DL will end up in this mix?

Hahahahaha I'm really far from spot On! Like picking bingo numbers every once in a hundred guesses you come up with a winner!
Some people think I'm more Batshit crazy than anything. But back to BUR WN needs 2 800 capable gates.
Also the Airport wants to drawl more traffic to the concessions on the far end of A gates more than anything else.

Flyguy

airplaneboy · Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:04 pm

nine4nine wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
Last I've heard WN will take A1-A7 AS gates A8 and Share Gate A9 with Hawaiian eventually something next year.
American B1 ,UNITED B2 & B3, JetBlue Gates B4 and B5.

Flyguy

Thx for sharing. I’ve noticed over the years you are usually really spot on with your posts.

I have heard the HA entry and possibly WN on Hawaii eventually as well. Kind of interesting to see if HA beats them to the punch there. I’d expect more WN adds in the future as well as LAX continues to add new destinations and more International service with no room to grow outside of Terminal 1.

I know other than a 73G BUR-HNL/OGG (operated by AQ) there would be performance issues on CEO models, but is that even relevant at this point with the NEO and MAX? Should be fairly easily done with 6886’ RWY I’d assume.

Have you heard where DL will end up in this mix?

I think BUR-Hawaii would be better suited for the MAX7 than the MAX8.

GSP psgr · Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:25 pm

I'm a bit surprised AA hasn't returned on the BUR-DFW route, as a way to connect the broader network to BUR.

OA940 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:38 pm

Would love to see BUR-Hawaii service on HA's A321neo. Great to see more secondary airport love.

nine4nine · Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:06 pm

GSP psgr wrote:
I'm a bit surprised AA hasn't returned on the BUR-DFW route, as a way to connect the broader network to BUR.

I was shocked that after all the years they ran it they pulled it. WN saw the value and from what I hear BUR-DAL is great.

SurfandSnow · Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:47 pm

nine4nine wrote:
A lot of good news coming out of BUR recently after years of stagnant growth and new destinations.

The good news at BUR is most welcome. I live in West Hollywood roughly equidistant between LAX and BUR, but find LAX to be so awful these days (dirty facilities, lack of seating, rude staff, horrible traffic to, from and through the airport at all times of day, wildly unpredictable security and check-in lines, arduously long taxiing and baggage wait times, frequent lack of gate availability, etc.) that I go out of my way to use BUR whenever possible. I know I'm not alone with my disdain for LAX, so I hope options at wonderfully easy BUR continue to increase!

nine4nine wrote:
B6- Adds 2nd JFK, introduces BOS

These options are not only great for O&D travelers, but also those connecting to overseas destinations!

nine4nine wrote:
Probably more to come from B6 as the LGB drawdown moves forward.

I would love to see BUR-FLL. Not sure what else makes sense for them, though. p2p service, including several routes from BUR, wasn't successful in the past.

nine4nine wrote:
WN- Adds MDW and HOU. Bringing a total of 12 destinations served by WN from BUR.

If anyone is going to be able to pull off BUR-MCO it's WN. Not sure if that route would be viable with all-Y seating and two free checked bags off the short BUR runways, though. Ditto for BUR-BWI. BUR-AUS seems like a logical addition, though. Maybe BUR-ABQ/MSY/RNO/STL too? I think at this point WN is more likely to add/restore additional frequencies on existing routes than try new ones, but I'd love to be wrong about that!

nine4nine wrote:
Would be great to see DL bring back ATL

It would, but their failure to restore ATL-OAK/ONT (I believe both have been retried at least once in recent years) makes me think this would be unlikely. AA resuming DFW-BUR or UA resuming ORD-BUR seems far more likely at this point. DL might be willing to give BUR-LAS/SEA a shot, though.

nine4nine wrote:
and more AS adds as they dig in on the CA front.

BUR-SMF seems like a no-brainer at this point. Maybe even BUR-OAK? WN beat them to the punch on BUR-SFO, but with the extensive SFO hub connectivity and FFer loyalty, that one might just work. Niche routes like BUR-ABQ/RNO/STS/TUS might be interesting opportunities, too!

nine4nine wrote:
Anyone think we may see the eventual entry of NK or F9?

I think the issue for those airlines is that their passengers tend to have absolutely no idea where "Burbank" is. While this airport might be very close to Universal Studios Hollywood and provide easy access to everything from the Rose Bowl to downtown LA, the average NK flier may very well think Burbank is in Kansas or New York.

ucdtim17 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 11:24 pm

SurfandSnow wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Would be great to see DL bring back ATL

It would, but their failure to restore ATL-OAK/ONT (I believe both have been retried at least once in recent years) makes me think this would be unlikely. AA resuming DFW-BUR or UA resuming ORD-BUR seems far more likely at this point. DL might be willing to give BUR-LAS/SEA a shot, though.

DL has started, stopped and started again ATL-OAK several times in recent years. It's a red eye this summer, but scheduled to end in August.

SurfandSnow wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
and more AS adds as they dig in on the CA front.

BUR-SMF seems like a no-brainer at this point. Maybe even BUR-OAK? WN beat them to the punch on BUR-SFO, but with the extensive SFO hub connectivity and FFer loyalty, that one might just work. Niche routes like BUR-ABQ/RNO/STS/TUS might be interesting opportunities, too!

I'm surprised AS hasn't started BUR-SFO yet as they seem to be connecting as many dots as possible from SFO in the past year. It also seems likely that at some point they'll jump into some combo of OAK-BUR/LAX/SNA/SAN but they haven't yet and there's no significant growth planned in the immediate future.

wn676 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 11:42 pm

phllax wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
Last I've heard WN will take A1-A7 AS gates A8 and Share Gate A9 with Hawaiian eventually something next year.
American B1 ,UNITED B2 & B3, JetBlue Gates B4 and B5.

Flyguy

UA and DL have to stay together as they're both ground handled by the same agent.

I don't think a 321neo can get out of BUR without any sizeable weight restrictions.

I think GAT handles every airline at BUR with the obvious exception of WN. Either way, the airport is common-use and small enough that utilizing another gate is not a huge issue. UA is also looking to move their mainline operations to A, and will not be using B2 specifically for the time being.

msycajun · Fri Jun 01, 2018 11:58 pm

SurfandSnow wrote:

If anyone is going to be able to pull off BUR-MCO it's WN. Not sure if that route would be viable with all-Y seating and two free checked bags off the short BUR runways, though. Ditto for BUR-BWI. BUR-AUS seems like a logical addition, though. Maybe BUR-ABQ/MSY/RNO/STL too? I think at this point WN is more likely to add/restore additional frequencies on existing routes than try new ones, but I'd love to be wrong about that!

I've been wondering whether someone will try MSY to one of the alternative L.A. airports. It's our third largest O&D market and loadfactors are high - WN posted 92% on MSY-LAX for the first two months of the year, so there's room for more flights. Given they have added SJC and SMF to MSY recently, maybe they'll give BUR a shot. Would also provide some additional options to connect to Florida and places like DCA, BWI, and LGA.

CaliguyNYC · Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:16 am

Glad to see the second JFK-BUT flight. Wish JetBlue had Mint into BUR. Without Mint, it’s DL out of LAX for me

wnflyguy · Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:30 am

wnflyguy wrote:
Last I've heard WN will take A1-A7 AS gates A8 and Share Gate A9 with Hawaiian eventually something next year.
American B1 ,UNITED B2 & B3, JetBlue Gates B4 and B5.

Flyguy

Update apparently AA moving to A1.
WN will have A2-A7 (6 gates total)
Delta at B1.

Flyguy

tphuang · Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:39 am

SurfandSnow wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Probably more to come from B6 as the LGB drawdown moves forward.

I would love to see BUR-FLL. Not sure what else makes sense for them, though. p2p service, including several routes from BUR, wasn't successful in the past.

It's between BUR and ONT. They are not going to stick around in LGB imo. If they pick BUR, then they can move the existing 20 or so flights to BUR and I think get similar yields. But after doing my own analysis, I think they will go with ONT in a few years. ONT is more underserved and seems to be less effected by LAX dominance on the 2hr+ routes. The longer runways + FIS at ONT offers them more flexibility on transcon + connection to Mexican market. They can't compete with WN on the west coast stuff, so would need enough international and transcon to support that.

nine4nine wrote:
WN- Adds MDW and HOU. Bringing a total of 12 destinations served by WN from BUR.

If anyone is going to be able to pull off BUR-MCO it's WN. Not sure if that route would be viable with all-Y seating and two free checked bags off the short BUR runways, though. Ditto for BUR-BWI. BUR-AUS seems like a logical addition, though. Maybe BUR-ABQ/MSY/RNO/STL too? I think at this point WN is more likely to add/restore additional frequencies on existing routes than try new ones, but I'd love to be wrong about that!

WN is very weak on transcon. If it's anyone, it will be B6 once they move into the new terminal in MCO.

nine4nine wrote:
and more AS adds as they dig in on the CA front.

BUR-SMF seems like a no-brainer at this point. Maybe even BUR-OAK? WN beat them to the punch on BUR-SFO, but with the extensive SFO hub connectivity and FFer loyalty, that one might just work. Niche routes like BUR-ABQ/RNO/STS/TUS might be interesting opportunities, too!

Those are not no brainers. WN is killing AS on BUR-SJC. I don't see how they can make SMF/OAK work given those 50% LF on BUR-SJC. BUR-SFO is probably over crowded with both UA and WN.

ericm2031 · Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:27 am

phllax wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
Last I've heard WN will take A1-A7 AS gates A8 and Share Gate A9 with Hawaiian eventually something next year.
American B1 ,UNITED B2 & B3, JetBlue Gates B4 and B5.

Flyguy

UA and DL have to stay together as they're both ground handled by the same agent.

I don't think a 321neo can get out of BUR without any sizeable weight restrictions.

That can change at anytime though...especially with UA bringing a lot of ground handling in house. They’ve “insourced” almost 50 stations to UGE already in only 3 years.

phllax · Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:39 am

wn676 wrote:
I think GAT handles every airline at BUR with the obvious exception of WN. Either way, the airport is common-use and small enough that utilizing another gate is not a huge issue. UA is also looking to move their mainline operations to A, and will not be using B2 specifically for the time being.

I swear that SkyWest handles UA and DL, but I may be wrong. As far as gate B2 is concerned, the thread about last week’s incident disappeared. Did they determine the cause? The lines for gates B1 and B2 are at weird angles to each other, and it has only been in the last 18 months that mainline besides AS is back using the B gates. I was surprised that they were using B2 to RON the United Airbus. Usually it is at B4.

phllax · Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:44 am

wnflyguy wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
Last I've heard WN will take A1-A7 AS gates A8 and Share Gate A9 with Hawaiian eventually something next year.
American B1 ,UNITED B2 & B3, JetBlue Gates B4 and B5.

Flyguy

Update apparently AA moving to A1.
WN will have A2-A7 (6 gates total)
Delta at B1.

Flyguy

Airways previously used the 320 at A5, so if true they would then have 3 gates (A5-A7) able to fit the 800’s and the MAX.

nine4nine · Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:57 pm

tphuang wrote:
SurfandSnow wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Probably more to come from B6 as the LGB drawdown moves forward.

I would love to see BUR-FLL. Not sure what else makes sense for them, though. p2p service, including several routes from BUR, wasn't successful in the past.

It's between BUR and ONT. They are not going to stick around in LGB imo. If they pick BUR, then they can move the existing 20 or so flights to BUR and I think get similar yields. But after doing my own analysis, I think they will go with ONT in a few years. ONT is more underserved and seems to be less effected by LAX dominance on the 2hr+ routes. The longer runways + FIS at ONT offers them more flexibility on transcon + connection to Mexican market. They can't compete with WN on the west coast stuff, so would need enough international and transcon to support that.

I hope you are wrong on this prediction. I do not see ONT capable of providing B6 the numbers on the type of operation they run. For short hops like LAS,OAK,PHX etc...on WN it makes sense but I don’t see the transcon heavy business from that side of the LA basin. It too far and sits between 4 atrocious east weat traffic nightmare highways (215,10,60,91) for most people other than North OC, Riverraide, San Bernardino and surrounding. Most of those areas with majority low income housing and dependent on a strong economy. Logistically I don’t see it fitting and if it were to happen I don’t think it would last long.

China Airlines thought the same moving a portion of its ops to ONT being fairly close to a large Asian community. From what I’ve read the flight is a total flop.

Maybe since the new BUR terminal is under final design tweaks B6 could request a FIS facility like they did with LGB? There was a rumbling of that being added anyways sometime back in some of the proposal papers I read about 10 years back. Maybe with the backing of WN and AS the city would move forward with it???

tphuang · Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:06 am

nine4nine wrote:
I hope you are wrong on this prediction. I do not see ONT capable of providing B6 the numbers on the type of operation they run. For short hops like LAS,OAK,PHX etc...on WN it makes sense but I don’t see the transcon heavy business from that side of the LA basin. It too far and sits between 4 atrocious east weat traffic nightmare highways (215,10,60,91) for most people other than North OC, Riverraide, San Bernardino and surrounding. Most of those areas with majority low income housing and dependent on a strong economy. Logistically I don’t see it fitting and if it were to happen I don’t think it would last long.

China Airlines thought the same moving a portion of its ops to ONT being fairly close to a large Asian community. From what I’ve read the flight is a total flop.

Maybe since the new BUR terminal is under final design tweaks B6 could request a FIS facility like they did with LGB? There was a rumbling of that being added anyways sometime back in some of the proposal papers I read about 10 years back. Maybe with the backing of WN and AS the city would move forward with it???

Not really a prediction, just a thought on how it might go. I think a lot of it will be based on the results of the transcon flights they add to BUR/ONT. JFK-BUR does very well for a solo red-eye flight. So if they see BOS flight does well also + the daily flight does well. They may choose to add more transcon out of BUR. This is where CS-300 would do great. They wouldn't have to worry about tech stops due to A320 range. And the lower capacity of CS300 would lower the barrier to profitability.

Just doing a little brainstorming on what a schedule could look like if they move from LGB to BUR. I think the transcon will do better, mid con will do better and the shorthaul stuff won't do any worse. They can run a schedule of 4x JFK, 2x BOS, 1x FLL and 1x MCO for the focus cities on the other side of the country. They'd have to rely purely on O&D since there wouldn't be any connections to Mexican resorts. Although, I guess they could do something like FLL/MCO-BUR-SEA/PDX/SMF/RNO. I don't think they'd run any flights to SJC/OAK since that's just asking for trouble against WN. There are already 5 flights each on WN/UA to SFO, but I'd imagine they'd have to have 4 flights there. They'd probably also move over 2x SMF, 3x LAS, 3x SLC, 1x SEA, 1x PDX. 1x RNO and 1x AUS. That's about 24 flights. The benefit is that they can offer LA area customers some destinations they don't offer out of LAX. And I guess having JetSuiteX operating out of FBO could potentially increase their customer base (another reason to not fly to SJC/OAK). The question is how well flights to west coast destinations would do. They actually didn't do so bad on SEA/PDX/SLC out of LGB, so I could see a drop in performance out of BUR where they'd face more competition.

Now if they don't move any short haul stuff to BUR, I could still see them adding BUR-MCO/FLL at some point if BUR-BOS does well.

Chemist · Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:36 am

I'd really look forward to more transcons from BUR in order to avoid LAX. Parking is $10/day cheaper at BUR so even when the fares are higher, it often makes sense just for the convenience.

Plus with front and rear non-jetway boarding/deboarding plus the proximity of the runway to the terminal, BUR has to be just about the fastest turnaround airport for mainline in the US.

nine4nine · Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:38 am

Chemist wrote:
I'd really look forward to more transcons from BUR in order to avoid LAX. Parking is $10/day cheaper at BUR so even when the fares are higher, it often makes sense just for the convenience.

Plus with front and rear non-jetway boarding/deboarding plus the proximity of the runway to the terminal, BUR has to be just about the fastest turnaround airport for mainline in the US.

And if I recall correctly one of the lowest in terms of landing fees and airport operating costs in Southern California. Does anyone have stats on how the So-Cal area airports stack up in terms of the operating fees?

nine4nine · Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:43 am

tphuang wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
I hope you are wrong on this prediction. I do not see ONT capable of providing B6 the numbers on the type of operation they run. For short hops like LAS,OAK,PHX etc...on WN it makes sense but I don’t see the transcon heavy business from that side of the LA basin. It too far and sits between 4 atrocious east weat traffic nightmare highways (215,10,60,91) for most people other than North OC, Riverraide, San Bernardino and surrounding. Most of those areas with majority low income housing and dependent on a strong economy. Logistically I don’t see it fitting and if it were to happen I don’t think it would last long.

China Airlines thought the same moving a portion of its ops to ONT being fairly close to a large Asian community. From what I’ve read the flight is a total flop.

Maybe since the new BUR terminal is under final design tweaks B6 could request a FIS facility like they did with LGB? There was a rumbling of that being added anyways sometime back in some of the proposal papers I read about 10 years back. Maybe with the backing of WN and AS the city would move forward with it???

Not really a prediction, just a thought on how it might go. I think a lot of it will be based on the results of the transcon flights they add to BUR/ONT. JFK-BUR does very well for a solo red-eye flight. So if they see BOS flight does well also + the daily flight does well. They may choose to add more transcon out of BUR. This is where CS-300 would do great. They wouldn't have to worry about tech stops due to A320 range. And the lower capacity of CS300 would lower the barrier to profitability.

Just doing a little brainstorming on what a schedule could look like if they move from LGB to BUR. I think the transcon will do better, mid con will do better and the shorthaul stuff won't do any worse. They can run a schedule of 4x JFK, 2x BOS, 1x FLL and 1x MCO for the focus cities on the other side of the country. They'd have to rely purely on O&D since there wouldn't be any connections to Mexican resorts. Although, I guess they could do something like FLL/MCO-BUR-SEA/PDX/SMF/RNO. I don't think they'd run any flights to SJC/OAK since that's just asking for trouble against WN. There are already 5 flights each on WN/UA to SFO, but I'd imagine they'd have to have 4 flights there. They'd probably also move over 2x SMF, 3x LAS, 3x SLC, 1x SEA, 1x PDX. 1x RNO and 1x AUS. That's about 24 flights. The benefit is that they can offer LA area customers some destinations they don't offer out of LAX. And I guess having JetSuiteX operating out of FBO could potentially increase their customer base (another reason to not fly to SJC/OAK). The question is how well flights to west coast destinations would do. They actually didn't do so bad on SEA/PDX/SLC out of LGB, so I could see a drop in performance out of BUR where they'd face more competition.

Now if they don't move any short haul stuff to BUR, I could still see them adding BUR-MCO/FLL at some point if BUR-BOS does well.

Thanks. Great post I agree!

I think B6 should add a business cabin to the 320 and possibly E190 replacement (hopefully on a CS300) fleet and keep mint on the 321. Would boost revenue, give a premium offering across the board, and also increase range issues on the 320.

wn676 · Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:46 am

phllax wrote:
wn676 wrote:
I think GAT handles every airline at BUR with the obvious exception of WN. Either way, the airport is common-use and small enough that utilizing another gate is not a huge issue. UA is also looking to move their mainline operations to A, and will not be using B2 specifically for the time being.

I swear that SkyWest handles UA and DL, but I may be wrong. As far as gate B2 is concerned, the thread about last week’s incident disappeared. Did they determine the cause? The lines for gates B1 and B2 are at weird angles to each other, and it has only been in the last 18 months that mainline besides AS is back using the B gates. I was surprised that they were using B2 to RON the United Airbus. Usually it is at B4.

AS had been using B4 but there’s about a week where they’ve reduced their mainline schedule, so UA has been using B4 to RON an Airbus.

UA and DL definitely use GAT.

B1/2 are oddballs for sure. I’ll just say that those pushback markers are easily mistaken for a taxilane centerline. It also doesn’t help that BUR was allowed to modify their RSA standards. We will all breathe easier when the new terminal is online.

MKIAZ · Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:42 am

I think it would be a very smart move to move the LGB hub to BUR. They could probably do well with mint to JFK with the entertainment industry.

As for ONT, no way. Here is the problem with ONT (and LGB to an extent)
https://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Cali ... -heat_map/

nine4nine · Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:13 pm

On the new OAG release DL upgauges BUR-SLC from 4 to 5 daily. Any chance any portion of this service will eventually go mainline (717) other than the mix of CRJ and E175?

washingtonflyer · Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:30 pm

Ive not flowin into and out of BUR for a few years but always fount it to be an intriguing airport.

One thing I thought I remember was that topography and runway length constrained operations at this airport - I know the longest runway is about 6900 feet.

Are there still major constraints on distance when 8/26 is in use?

jplatts · Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:56 pm

nine4nine wrote:
I hope you are wrong on this prediction. I do not see ONT capable of providing B6 the numbers on the type of operation they run. For short hops like LAS,OAK,PHX etc...on WN it makes sense but I don’t see the transcon heavy business from that side of the LA basin. It too far and sits between 4 atrocious east weat traffic nightmare highways (215,10,60,91) for most people other than North OC, Riverraide, San Bernardino and surrounding. Most of those areas with majority low income housing and dependent on a strong economy. Logistically I don’t see it fitting and if it were to happen I don’t think it would last long.

A few of the Eastern LA suburbs that are within 15 miles of Downtown LA, including Rosemead, El Monte, and Temple City, are actually closer to ONT than to LAX. There are some business travelers who live in Eastern Los Angeles County and who work in Downtown LA, and ONT might be able to attract more business travelers from Eastern LA County if more service is added out of ONT. However, many of the travelers who live in Eastern Los Angeles County prefer to fly on the big 4 US carriers (AA, DL, UA, and WN). There is also significant travel from ONT to some of the destinations that aren't served nonstop out of ONT, but most of these destinations are either WN focus cities or DL hubs.

LAXintl · Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:22 pm

Idea to move JetBlue LGB focus city to BUR is largely nonsense to me.

BUR has a far smaller catchment area - 17 percent of the regions potential domestic passenger base, versus over 40 percent at LGB with its very accessible location. BUR works for primarily for the northern portion of the Greater LA, while LGB can draw from central and western LA basin along with OC. Just because B6 has done a poor job of marketing itself with LGB is not a reflection of the airports potential.

In addition, BUR has operational issues including its own curfew (and fine$) and runway performance issues. When the winds blow and 33's are used for departures planes like 737s barely make LAS/PHX and often must hop over to places like ONT for fuel.

So no, I dont see BUR as much of an option, particularly from a marketing perspective. B6 would be drawing itself in an even smaller box at BUR than what they experience at LGB. Yes sure, add a flight here or there, but the concept to move the LGB operation up to BUR is largely silliness.

Dominion301 · Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:31 pm

deltadudejg wrote:
Does anyone know how their gate space usage is?

It should be fine considering BUR is still a ways off from their peak traffic levels from a decade ago.

nine4nine · Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:13 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Idea to move JetBlue LGB focus city to BUR is largely nonsense to me.

BUR has a far smaller catchment area - 17 percent of the regions potential domestic passenger base, versus over 40 percent at LGB with its very accessible location. BUR works for primarily for the northern portion of the Greater LA, while LGB can draw from central and western LA basin along with OC. Just because B6 has done a poor job of marketing itself with LGB is not a reflection of the airports potential.

In addition, BUR has operational issues including its own curfew (and fine$) and runway performance issues. When the winds blow and 33's are used for departures planes like 737s barely make LAS/PHX and often must hop over to places like ONT for fuel.

So no, I dont see BUR as much of an option, particularly from a marketing perspective. B6 would be drawing itself in an even smaller box at BUR than what they experience at LGB. Yes sure, add a flight here or there, but the concept to move the LGB operation up to BUR is largely silliness.

How so? You’re fuel stop example on high wind days on short hop flights was relevant to the 737 classics. No longer relevant for WN.

While LGB does have the catchment of South Bay, Long Beach, portions of OC, that’s pretty much it and they are right in between and have to share that with LAX and SNA.

BUR caters to a far broader demographic. Bakersfield, Palmdale, Lancaster, Santa Clarita Valley, Simi Valley, Ventura and surrounding communities, the entire San Fernando Valley, westdide LA , Hollywood, Downtown LA, La Creacenta Valley, Glendale, and Pasadena. A far larger catchment than LGB so I’m going to kindly disagree with you.

Let’s also not forget BUR is not slot restricted. LGB is slot restricted to 40. WN at BUR turns roughly 60 daily alone.

nine4nine · Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:43 pm

nine4nine wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
Idea to move JetBlue LGB focus city to BUR is largely nonsense to me.

BUR has a far smaller catchment area - 17 percent of the regions potential domestic passenger base, versus over 40 percent at LGB with its very accessible location. BUR works for primarily for the northern portion of the Greater LA, while LGB can draw from central and western LA basin along with OC. Just because B6 has done a poor job of marketing itself with LGB is not a reflection of the airports potential.

In addition, BUR has operational issues including its own curfew (and fine$) and runway performance issues. When the winds blow and 33's are used for departures planes like 737s barely make LAS/PHX and often must hop over to places like ONT for fuel.

So no, I dont see BUR as much of an option, particularly from a marketing perspective. B6 would be drawing itself in an even smaller box at BUR than what they experience at LGB. Yes sure, add a flight here or there, but the concept to move the LGB operation up to BUR is largely silliness.

How so? You’re fuel stop example on high wind days on short hop flights was relevant to the 737 classics. No longer relevant for WN.

While LGB does have the catchment of South Bay, Long Beach, South LA, portions of OC, that’s pretty much it and they are right in between and have to share that with LAX and SNA.

BUR caters to a far broader demographic. Bakersfield, Palmdale, Lancaster, Santa Clarita Valley, Simi Valley, Ventura and surrounding communities, the entire San Fernando Valley, westdide LA , Hollywood, Downtown LA, La Creacenta Valley, Glendale, and Pasadena. A far larger catchment than LGB so I’m going to kindly disagree with you.

Let’s also not forget BUR is not slot restricted. LGB is slot restricted to 40. WN at BUR turns roughly 60 daily alone.

MKIAZ · Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:00 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Idea to move JetBlue LGB focus city to BUR is largely nonsense to me.

BUR has a far smaller catchment area - 17 percent of the regions potential domestic passenger base, versus over 40 percent at LGB with its very accessible location. BUR works for primarily for the northern portion of the Greater LA, while LGB can draw from central and western LA basin along with OC. Just because B6 has done a poor job of marketing itself with LGB is not a reflection of the airports potential.

In addition, BUR has operational issues including its own curfew (and fine$) and runway performance issues. When the winds blow and 33's are used for departures planes like 737s barely make LAS/PHX and often must hop over to places like ONT for fuel.

So no, I dont see BUR as much of an option, particularly from a marketing perspective. B6 would be drawing itself in an even smaller box at BUR than what they experience at LGB. Yes sure, add a flight here or there, but the concept to move the LGB operation up to BUR is largely silliness.

I disagree about the catchment. LGB basically has long beach, lakewood, some north OC areas. Most people equidistant to LGB and LAX are going to choose LAX for the better schedule. Same with SNA. And let's face it, long beach is a fairly working-class area. There are some affluent suburbs in north OC and some expensive areas of Long Beach, no doubt. But it doesn't even come close to the wealth in the santa monica / beverly hills/ hollywood/ glendale corridor.

BUR has the entire SGV as it's closest airport, as well as pasadena. Basically BUR is a much more convenient airport for way more very affluent households than LGB is and that translates into profit for an airline.

tphuang · Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:00 pm

Regarding the airports in LA area, I will say this. SNA is clearly the highest yielding. After that, I took a look at yields of ONT vs BUR vs LGB.

And since I wanted to take the JetBlue effect out, I focused on the routes operated by other carriers to their major hubs. It was pretty clear to me that LGB was by far the lowest yielding. UA doesn't even bother to fly out of LGB. AA did by far the worst to PHX out of LGB. Same with DL to SLC. WN numbers were even worse than B6.

What I did notice was that between BUR and ONT, BUR did much better on the stuff to Bay Area and had far more traffic to LAS. Which to me indicates that there is a lot of overlap for short range stuff between BUR/LAX. For any of the longer range stuff or even flights to PHX/SLC/DFW, ONT did better. My theory is that while BUR is generally in a more wealthy area, the vast choices at LAX takes away all the traffic for flights of > 500 miles. ONT is further away and has longer runway, so it's got a larger catchment area for longer ranged flights.

MKIAZ · Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:04 pm

I think ONT's Catchment area is pretty bad. Yes there are some affluent suburbs west of ONT, but there's not much east or south of ONT. If you're west of ONT and used to driving to LAX, you'll probably keep doing it unless it's cheaper at ONT.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net