heretothere wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

heretothere wrote:

Strange, I don’t remember the outrage when DL was awarded LHR slots following the approval of the AA/BA joint venture...

Why didn't B6 also try for the slots then?

Well, at the time they lacked the plane, the product, and the network scale just to name a few. Does their lack of participation a decade ago preclude their parcipation today in a separate joint venture application?

Others have waited longer than they've been alive AND had to pay. Why are they special?

Their lack of participation then does not preclude them trying to subvert the existing system now, and they may succeed. But overall it appears to me to be a rather pathetic attempt since they still lack those very same attributes you ascribed to them then (plane, product, and network). Given those facts, what is the true purpose of their filing?

ASA wrote:

If B6 wants to play with the big boys - so be it - let them fly 321s and learn their lesson. They are NOT getting the slots for FREE. It is understood very well that they'd have to buy them.

Why is it understood that they would have to buy them? If they really want to spend the money on slots, they don't need the anti-trust action. B6 is trying to get the slots for free, and they have every right to do so.

SteelChair wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Jetblue is going to learn the same lesson Braniff, Piedmont, Usair, Delta, AA and Continental learned in the 1970's, Heathrow is a closed airport to free slots. Open skies occured in 2008 but slots were not free, some airline paid hundreds of millions for slots. Daily A321 flights from Boston and JFK to London, really, if JB wants to be a "grown up airline" they better get some grown up airplanes.

Umm, where does it say they want it for “free”? I think they understand it will come with a price they are willing to pay for. Braniff and piedmont got “grown up airplanes” (whatever that means) and look what happened to them. They are being strategic. And trying to make this ludicrous monopolies of the tatl market be more competitive like it was just about 10-11 years ago.

But of course this is airliners, god forbid a newer airline dares challenge the big boys....it’s just not possible in free market industry

Hmmmm...10 years ago. You mean when virtually the entire industry went bankrupt? We're flying re-hashed 1980s and 1960s airplanes (A320 series and B737 series) as "new" planes now because no one could afford rhe cost of capital and for 10 years the industry stagnated. Thousands of jobs were lost and benefits were slashed for those managed to hold on. Meanwhile, subsidized foreign carriers like the ME3 flourished. Not content with home subsidies, they were also subsidized by US taxpayers thru the Ex-Im bank. Do you want to subsidize them further, do you see the slavish way they treat their employees? Do you want the US airline industry to go the way of the maritime shipping industry? I guess as long as you get a cheap ticket to wherever you are going, that's all that counts.

B6 shouldn't get LHR for any price. They need to wait 20 more years like everyone else. If they can make it that long.

Steelchair, That last statement proves your confirmation bias is off the charts. You basically said just cause you hate JetBlue they show shouldn’t get to fly to lhr. Ok sure. Come back when your capricious tone has subsided.

ASA wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

[*]
Go ahead and list those airlines then

Really? Thats the best you've got?

What a ridiculous request. The onus is not on me, and besides, some of them were already listed above. Go read about the history of the airline industry for the last 40 years.....and then get back to us here in the thread when you have something positive to contribute.

Wrong - that's not a ridiculous request at all. Most of us readers here are here to learn and discuss and ask questions if needed. Not to see child like spouting off about carriers they don't like or what they know about the airline industry. This is an enthusiast's forum. If you had something to contribute for our knowledge - you'd have written it here. Not just throw mud.

If B6 wants to play with the big boys - so be it - let them fly 321s and learn their lesson. They are NOT getting the slots for FREE. It is understood very well that they'd have to buy them.

Thank you ASA

They got their JFK slots for free.

Too bad so sad on LHR slot, let them buy them like everyone else had too.

heretothere wrote:

Strange, I don’t remember the outrage when DL was awarded LHR slots following the approval of the AA/BA joint venture...

Delta got one frequency, they used it for PHL-LHR, then moved it.

Abeam79 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

Umm, where does it say they want it for “free”? I think they understand it will come with a price they are willing to pay for. Braniff and piedmont got “grown up airplanes” (whatever that means) and look what happened to them. They are being strategic. And trying to make this ludicrous monopolies of the tatl market be more competitive like it was just about 10-11 years ago.

But of course this is airliners, god forbid a newer airline dares challenge the big boys....it’s just not possible in free market industry

Hmmmm...10 years ago. You mean when virtually the entire industry went bankrupt? We're flying re-hashed 1980s and 1960s airplanes (A320 series and B737 series) as "new" planes now because no one could afford rhe cost of capital and for 10 years the industry stagnated. Thousands of jobs were lost and benefits were slashed for those managed to hold on. Meanwhile, subsidized foreign carriers like the ME3 flourished. Not content with home subsidies, they were also subsidized by US taxpayers thru the Ex-Im bank. Do you want to subsidize them further, do you see the slavish way they treat their employees? Do you want the US airline industry to go the way of the maritime shipping industry? I guess as long as you get a cheap ticket to wherever you are going, that's all that counts.

B6 shouldn't get LHR for any price. They need to wait 20 more years like everyone else. If they can make it that long.

Steelchair, That last statement proves your confirmation bias is off the charts. You basically said just cause you hate JetBlue they show shouldn’t get to fly to lhr. Ok sure. Come back when your capricious tone has subsided.

ASA wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Really? Thats the best you've got?

What a ridiculous request. The onus is not on me, and besides, some of them were already listed above. Go read about the history of the airline industry for the last 40 years.....and then get back to us here in the thread when you have something positive to contribute.

Wrong - that's not a ridiculous request at all. Most of us readers here are here to learn and discuss and ask questions if needed. Not to see child like spouting off about carriers they don't like or what they know about the airline industry. This is an enthusiast's forum. If you had something to contribute for our knowledge - you'd have written it here. Not just throw mud.

If B6 wants to play with the big boys - so be it - let them fly 321s and learn their lesson. They are NOT getting the slots for FREE. It is understood very well that they'd have to buy them.

Thank you ASA

Again, who said anything about hating anyone? I assert that they should have to do what others have done. Which means no LHR slots for a long time. B6 should wait 10 more years and try again, and bring their checkbook.

Boof02671 wrote:

heretothere wrote:

Strange, I don’t remember the outrage when DL was awarded LHR slots following the approval of the AA/BA joint venture...

Delta got one frequency, they used it for PHL-LHR, then moved it.

Didn't they also have MIA-LHR as a slot divestment for AA/BA?

I guess one thing DL did have going for them is the scale to run PHL-LHR as a loss leader (especially with UK sales support from VS) for 6 seasons to gain a slot that could then be moved to another route. Unless B6 get lucky and LHR-JFK or LHR-BOS gets opened up then they won't have the network strength or resources to fly something like PHL-LHR in the name of LHR access. Even if BOS or JFK is awarded it will only be one frequency which is uncompetitive, especially to JFK.

Continental started with 2x EWR but very quickly spent $$$$$$$$$$$$ to get that up to 5x as they knew that they needed to either go hard or go home.

SteelChair wrote:

heretothere wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Why didn't B6 also try for the slots then?

Well, at the time they lacked the plane, the product, and the network scale just to name a few. Does their lack of participation a decade ago preclude their parcipation today in a separate joint venture application?

Others have waited longer than they've been alive AND had to pay. Why are they special?

Their lack of participation then does not preclude them trying to subvert the existing system now, and they may succeed. But overall it appears to me to be a rather pathetic attempt since they still lack those very same attributes you ascribed to them then (plane, product, and network). Given those facts, what is the true purpose of their filing?

Well first, DL did not wait decades for slots, they waited for open skies. The difference is important. Second, B6 may end up paying for LHR slots as well. I don’t believe they’ve ever stated they will only use remedy slots. Much like DL, I’m guessing they are prepared to acquire slots through a variety of methods including leveraging their partnerships or simply paying market rates. Finally, agree to disagree on what the facts are regarding B6’s ability to effectively serve LHR. Clearly they believe they can and ultimately, if a remedy is in order, it’s up to the DOT to decide.

Boof02671 wrote:

heretothere wrote:

Strange, I don’t remember the outrage when DL was awarded LHR slots following the approval of the AA/BA joint venture...

Delta got one frequency, they used it for PHL-LHR, then moved it.

Thank you, I actually forgot about PHL. I was referring to BOS and MIA:

https://news.delta.com/delta-air-lines- ... ow-airport

RyanairGuru wrote:

I guess one thing DL did have going for them is the scale to run PHL-LHR as a loss leader (especially with UK sales support from VS) for 6 seasons to gain a slot that could then be moved to another route. Unless B6 get lucky and LHR-JFK or LHR-BOS gets opened up then they won't have the network strength or resources to fly something like PHL-LHR in the name of LHR access. Even if BOS or JFK is awarded it will only be one frequency which is uncompetitive, especially to JFK.

jetBlue can argue that each of the LHR-BOS and LHR-JFK markets is anti-competitive and they need remedy slots in each market. It can be both JFK and BOS, not either. The key question is the markets to LHR in particular, not London in general. The case with the divestiture of the AA gates at Dallas Love Field points to the fact that individual airports in bigger metro areas can be considered separate markets.

Sour grapes!

I suggest that B6 christen their next new delivery as JET BOO HOO !!!!

I can't help but think AA/BA is going to nuke this attempt from LHR, AF/DL and KL/DL from CDG and AMS respectively.

AMS in particular is asinine.

B6 is going over the pond in what type of equipment? The A321s on a consistent basis seems like a bad idea! But that is just me.

Airlines stretching planes to their limits cant be good for the plane long term.

I mean they got the Government to agree for EK to use them as a “national airline” because of the code-share on IAD-DXB. They don’t even fly there anymore... B6 is desperate for cash and I wouldnt be surprised if this is another attempt to please the desperate subsidized EK to enter the busy LHR-JFK....

Its jetBlue.... but the plane says Emirates..

Seen it before..

I have to wonder if B6 might just be wise to wait to see if Norwegian collapses and then try to bid for those slots at Gatwick.

When the majors rule 80% of the market, B6 will get slots!! Just watch.

santi319 wrote:

I mean they got the Government to agree for EK to use them as a “national airline” because of the code-share on IAD-DXB. They don’t even fly there anymore... B6 is desperate for cash and I wouldnt be surprised if this is another attempt to please the desperate subsidized EK to enter the busy LHR-JFK....

Its jetBlue.... but the plane says Emirates..

Seen it before..

Since when is jetblue desperate for cash. Don’t let slightly one down year fool you, jetblue has a very very good balance sheet.

N757ST wrote:

santi319 wrote:

I mean they got the Government to agree for EK to use them as a “national airline” because of the code-share on IAD-DXB. They don’t even fly there anymore... B6 is desperate for cash and I wouldnt be surprised if this is another attempt to please the desperate subsidized EK to enter the busy LHR-JFK....

Its jetBlue.... but the plane says Emirates..

Seen it before..

Since when is jetblue desperate for cash. Don’t let slightly one down year fool you, jetblue has a very very good balance sheet.

Did some research and you are right. Their cash and debt ratio is good. My theory still stands, as I really don’t see B6 jumping on the transatlantic bandwagon with Mint with 321NEOs.

It just isnt a smart move..

santi319 wrote:

N757ST wrote:

santi319 wrote:

I mean they got the Government to agree for EK to use them as a “national airline” because of the code-share on IAD-DXB. They don’t even fly there anymore... B6 is desperate for cash and I wouldnt be surprised if this is another attempt to please the desperate subsidized EK to enter the busy LHR-JFK....

Its jetBlue.... but the plane says Emirates..

Seen it before..

Since when is jetblue desperate for cash. Don’t let slightly one down year fool you, jetblue has a very very good balance sheet.

Did some research and you are right. Their cash and debt ratio is good. My theory still stands, as I really don’t see B6 jumping on the transatlantic bandwagon with Mint with 321NEOs.

It just isnt a smart move..

How is this a bad move? There is nothing to lose and they have a valid argument. Competition across the Atlantic, especially to slot controlled airports, is controlled by essentially 3 entities because of these JVs. Until this filing no other US airline was really in a position to have assets or desire to fly these routings, so the government really has little argument for needing remedy slots. Jetblue stands to make a lot of money if they are able to obtain these takeoff rights even if it only flys mint a321s in there. The consumer obviously gains because it’s likely that Mint will be priced more competitively then what is currently being offered in the marketplace. I also obviously see why the big 3 are going to entrench, because they don’t want to give up these slots and their pricing power. Both sides have an argument, so let’s wait and see how this plays out.

NateGreat wrote:

If they want London so badly, why not use Gatwick?

Because it's not really about serving the customers, it's about the prestige of being an International Airline and playing in the league with the big boys.

There are plenty of airports in the UK that could benefit from a New York service. But that would require marketing effort, and that's too much bother. Airlines are lazy and herd-following like most other companies.

N757ST wrote:

How is this a bad move? There is nothing to lose and they have a valid argument. Competition across the Atlantic, especially to slot controlled airports, is controlled by essentially 3 entities because of these JVs. Until this filing no other US airline was really in a position to have assets or desire to fly these routings, so the government really has little argument for needing remedy slots. Jetblue stands to make a lot of money if they are able to obtain these takeoff rights even if it only flys mint a321s in there. The consumer obviously gains because it’s likely that Mint will be priced more competitively then what is currently being offered in the marketplace. I also obviously see why the big 3 are going to entrench, because they don’t want to give up these slots and their pricing power. Both sides have an argument, so let’s wait and see how this plays out.

Except history has shown that the U.S. DOT won't necessarily limit the recipients of remedy slots to U.S. carriers. If Norwegian survives, I could very easily see them making a better case than B6 with 787s from LHR to JFK/BOS/LAX. Heck, LH and UA could also make an excellent argument for potential remedy slots and neither has a particularly large presence at LHR or AMS.

Frankly I find the impact of perhaps 50 daily lower-priced J class seats each way to/from LHR to have a very limited benefit to the consumer. And frankly B6 has quite a lot to lose if Norwegian or some other potential dark horse (WOW with Indigo's backing?) were to end up with the remedy slots instead; transatlantic ULCCs at LHR would make the market very challenging for them if they were forced to use LGW or STN instead.

N757ST wrote:

santi319 wrote:

N757ST wrote:

Since when is jetblue desperate for cash. Don’t let slightly one down year fool you, jetblue has a very very good balance sheet.

Did some research and you are right. Their cash and debt ratio is good. My theory still stands, as I really don’t see B6 jumping on the transatlantic bandwagon with Mint with 321NEOs.

It just isnt a smart move..

How is this a bad move? There is nothing to lose and they have a valid argument. Competition across the Atlantic, especially to slot controlled airports, is controlled by essentially 3 entities because of these JVs. Until this filing no other US airline was really in a position to have assets or desire to fly these routings, so the government really has little argument for needing remedy slots. Jetblue stands to make a lot of money if they are able to obtain these takeoff rights even if it only flys mint a321s in there. The consumer obviously gains because it’s likely that Mint will be priced more competitively then what is currently being offered in the marketplace. I also obviously see why the big 3 are going to entrench, because they don’t want to give up these slots and their pricing power. Both sides have an argument, so let’s wait and see how this plays out.

I agree, but theyre not really saying its with their own metal. At all in the entire docket..

SteelChair wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Not one. All. Who got LHR slots for free? Can you name even a single one?

VS, they were based at LGW, they had to fight to get into LHR and once they did, they were given slots.

And here i thought we were talking about US airlines. Aren't the rules different for VS given that they are a British Company?

No we are talking about airlines with Anti trust JV's. You know like DL/VA & AA/BA. What part of that did you get only US carriers from.
We were asked to name a "single one", he did can't change the rules now.

Can a US court order LHR to give B6 slots? I doubt it. All that will likepy happen is the JV stops and B6.will still not get slots..

santi319 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

So after other airlines were banished to LGW and waited 10s of years and spent millions of dollars to get LHR slots.......B6 should get slots in the name of "competition?" When they are a crappy competitor (see DOT on time stats) to begin with? Hey, as long as we are going down this route, why not gift them HND slots (edit: for free)?

I dont think the slots are for them, potentially for EK??

Possible. B6 and EK are close. EK 787's can't be exclusively for DXB.

Varsity1 wrote:

I can't help but think AA/BA is going to nuke this attempt from LHR, AF/DL and KL/DL from CDG and AMS respectively.

AMS in particular is asinine.

Thanks for demonstrating why these ATI JVs shouldn’t be allowed

heretothere wrote:

[Well, at the time they lacked the plane, the product, and the network scale just to name a few. Does their lack of participation a decade ago preclude their parcipation today in a separate joint venture application?

What plane are they flying now that they weren't flying a decade ago?

"Hey, if you don't own a gun .... don't bother coming to the gun control debate!!!"

This is great!!! This is where this debate keeps coming back every few posts ... just because B6 doesn't have widebodies, they can't/shouldn't complain about how the JVs stifle TATL competition?!!! Unbelievable ... we wanna be free market capitalists and restrict markets at the same time!!!

VS11 wrote:

The case with the divestiture of the AA gates at Dallas Love Field points to the fact that individual airports in bigger metro areas can be considered separate markets.

You've got that backward. AA wouldn't have had to give up anything at DAL if it was considered a different market from DFW. The DOT (DOJ?) considered the whole Dallas market, hence AA having to give up their gates.

alfa164 wrote:

heretothere wrote:

[Well, at the time they lacked the plane, the product, and the network scale just to name a few. Does their lack of participation a decade ago preclude their parcipation today in a separate joint venture application?

What plane are they flying now that they weren't flying a decade ago?

A321neo with options to convert future orders to the A321neo lr.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

B6 is going over the pond in what type of equipment? The A321s on a consistent basis seems like a bad idea! But that is just me.

Airlines stretching planes to their limits cant be good for the plane long term.

The A321neo lr should be able to make JFK/BOS-LHR without much of a problem. B6 has the option to convert orders to the lr.
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... o-lr-plans

cledaybuck wrote:

VS11 wrote:

The case with the divestiture of the AA gates at Dallas Love Field points to the fact that individual airports in bigger metro areas can be considered separate markets.

You've got that backward. AA wouldn't have had to give up anything at DAL if it was considered a different market from DFW. The DOT (DOJ?) considered the whole Dallas market, hence AA having to give up their gates.

And you got my point wrong. It was the award of the gates to Virgin America instead of Delta, not the divestiture of the AA gates, that is important here. Virgin America got the gates because the DAL market was seen as different from DFW.

Whilst instinctively these JVs ought to limit competition, in their defence, the cheapest fares say LHR/JFK compare favourably with those of 20 years ago, destinations served directly have increased dramatically by sharing feed and making more routes viable, and new entrants can sill get in the game. Norwegian was apparently JFK's largest carrier until recently - but from nowhere! and only marginally behind BA. (OK Not directly comparable but these JVs are US/EU wide).
Its not all bad.
But at the end of the day a decent FFP will restrict consumer choice (albeit it is the consumers choice to do so through loyalty)

VS11 wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

VS11 wrote:

The case with the divestiture of the AA gates at Dallas Love Field points to the fact that individual airports in bigger metro areas can be considered separate markets.

You've got that backward. AA wouldn't have had to give up anything at DAL if it was considered a different market from DFW. The DOT (DOJ?) considered the whole Dallas market, hence AA having to give up their gates.

And you got my point wrong. It was the award of the gates to Virgin America instead of Delta, not the divestiture of the AA gates, that is important here. Virgin America got the gates because the DAL market was seen as different from DFW.

VX got the gates because they were a small LCC. How would VX being awarded the gates show that DAL and DFW are different markets? Heck, VX moved their whole operation from DFW to DAL. You don't do that if they are separate markets.

cledaybuck wrote:

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

B6 is going over the pond in what type of equipment? The A321s on a consistent basis seems like a bad idea! But that is just me.

Airlines stretching planes to their limits cant be good for the plane long term.

The A321neo lr should be able to make JFK/BOS-LHR without much of a problem. B6 has the option to convert orders to the lr.
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... o-lr-plans

I agree the a321 NEO LR it should be fine from Boston / JFK. Eventually, B6 will have to buy a widebody aircraft. Sort of like what Westjet in canada is doing with the 787. Slowly integrate larger planes to go over seas.

santi319 wrote:

N757ST wrote:

santi319 wrote:

Did some research and you are right. Their cash and debt ratio is good. My theory still stands, as I really don’t see B6 jumping on the transatlantic bandwagon with Mint with 321NEOs.

It just isnt a smart move..

How is this a bad move? There is nothing to lose and they have a valid argument. Competition across the Atlantic, especially to slot controlled airports, is controlled by essentially 3 entities because of these JVs. Until this filing no other US airline was really in a position to have assets or desire to fly these routings, so the government really has little argument for needing remedy slots. Jetblue stands to make a lot of money if they are able to obtain these takeoff rights even if it only flys mint a321s in there. The consumer obviously gains because it’s likely that Mint will be priced more competitively then what is currently being offered in the marketplace. I also obviously see why the big 3 are going to entrench, because they don’t want to give up these slots and their pricing power. Both sides have an argument, so let’s wait and see how this plays out.

I agree, but theyre not really saying its with their own metal. At all in the entire docket..

Are you kidding? Of course it’s on their own metal. They wouldn’t be doing all the work for a foreign airline, plus EK is not on auspices of the dot to do that. EK can just use 5th freedom rights if it wants on thier own. Do a cursory google search and B6 is quit adamant about using the A321LR’s for TATAL. And the ceo has made dozens of internal emails about JetBlue flying to Europe for reasons of purchasing the LR’s. Also the new pilot contract scope forbids another airline to do all flying on behalf of JetBlue unless any such JV with the carrier also has JetBlue’s own metal and equipment/crews to fly it within a couple years of the service. They want to do it cause there is ALOT of money to be made all on their own and not having to dilute earnings to another carrier.

ELBOB wrote:

NateGreat wrote:

If they want London so badly, why not use Gatwick?

Because it's not really about serving the customers, it's about the prestige of being an International Airline and playing in the league with the big boys.

There are plenty of airports in the UK that could benefit from a New York service. But that would require marketing effort, and that's too much bother. Airlines are lazy and herd-following like most other companies.

They are going for Business contracts out of BOS and JFK. That's why they want to have a cheaper premium product (MINT) on that TATL route. Currently in places like BOS, DL is taking away valuable business contracts from B6 because they can't offer a similar international network.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

I agree the a321 NEO LR it should be fine from Boston / JFK. Eventually, B6 will have to buy a widebody aircraft. Sort of like what Westjet in canada is doing with the 787. Slowly integrate larger planes to go over seas.

I think their play is going to be to enter the market with a321 NEO LR that could easily be re purposed for South America or Transcons if their LHR experiment doesn't work out. Then buy something like the 797 when it becomes available to serve the routes. I can't see them getting something as big as a 787.

cledaybuck wrote:

VX got the gates because they were a small LCC. How would VX being awarded the gates show that DAL and DFW are different markets? Heck, VX moved their whole operation from DFW to DAL. You don't do that if they are separate markets.

Here is the judgement. I don’t see why JetBlue can’t use that case to have the government make AA and DL divest some of their LHR slots.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-docume ... 6/download

VS11 wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

VX got the gates because they were a small LCC. How would VX being awarded the gates show that DAL and DFW are different markets? Heck, VX moved their whole operation from DFW to DAL. You don't do that if they are separate markets.

Here is the judgement. I don’t see why JetBlue can’t use that case to have the government make AA and DL divest some of their LHR slots.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-docume ... 6/download

You are right, there is a lot in there that B6 could argue for London, especially about LCC's entering markets, providing competition, and driving down fares. I just don't see that it says DFW and DAL are different markets. From the judgment:

"The remedy is a major victory for American consumers. It will enable Low Cost Carriers (“LCCs”) to fly millions of new passengers per year to destinations throughout the country. It fully addresses the harm that would have resulted from New American’s control of nearly 70% of the limited takeoff and landing slots at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (“Reagan National”). It enables LCCs to acquire otherwise unobtainable slots and gates at Reagan National (Southwest Airlines, JetBlue Airways and Virgin America) and LaGuardia Airport (Southwest and Virgin America), and to obtain gates at other busy airports around the country such as Los Angeles International Airport, Chicago O’Hare International Airport, and Dallas Love Field. And by introducing new low-cost capacity and service on numerous routes around the country, it enhances the ability of LCCs to thwart industry coordination among the legacy carriers."
and
"The divestitures will position the acquirer to provide vigorous competition to New American’s nonstop and connecting service out of DFW."

The DOJ wanted everything to go to LCC's and they stated that it would allow completion with American at DFW.

777Mech wrote:

So are the 3 JVs not competing against each other and driving down prices? TATL pricing has been dirt cheap, and B6 doesn't even have a plane in their fleet that can do TATL, and probably couldn't afford 1 slot at LHR anyways.

It's not Y prices that they are worried about.. It is mainly the NYC-LHR (AA&BA| DL & VS) NYC--FRA (UA&LH) NYC--AMS (DL&AF) NYC--CDG (DL&AF) that he is referring to with J pax. The issue is generally these flights in Biz cost ~$5K+ with advanced booking and ~$10k + if booking less than a week out. those prices in J would drop like a rock in a B6 could make a meaningful entrance into those markets and compete. Think of what happened on NYC-LAX. Historically J seats were always close to $3K in J or F back in the day for the premium transcon.. Then B6 came along with Mint and now you can get a round trip in J JFK-LAX-JFK around $1200.. You even see AA F seats prices around $1k each way now on some days.

I'd be willing to be J prices on JFK-LHR would drop closer to $3K if B6 made a meaningful entry into the competition on that route.. the benefit would be for all consumers who then could still chose to fly VS or DL or BA or AA or B6 or UA (EWR) but at a significantly lower price in J.

cledaybuck wrote:

I just don't see that it says DFW and DAL are different markets.

You are right - it does not specifically say that but one could argue that it is implied. Either way, the important point is that it is an analogous situation which JetBlue should be able to use in its case.

gsg013 wrote:

It's not Y prices that they are worried about.. It is mainly the NYC-LHR (AA&BA| DL & VS) NYC--FRA (UA&LH) NYC--AMS (DL&AF) NYC--CDG (DL&AF) that he is referring to with J pax. The issue is generally these flights in Biz cost ~$5K+ with advanced booking and ~$10k + if booking less than a week out.

What is your source for the ~5K+ and ~10K+ quote? Is it whatever you find on Expedia or the airline websites? The bulk of the travelers in premium cabins will be traveling in corporate negotiated fares, not the ones you see out there. From that perspective you do not have a case.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

B6 is going over the pond in what type of equipment? The A321s on a consistent basis seems like a bad idea! But that is just me.

Airlines stretching planes to their limits cant be good for the plane long term.

Airlines stretching their funds to their limits can’t be good for the company long term either. B6 needs to be cautious with their expansion to Europe. It should be only their next step, not their last step.

incitatus wrote:

gsg013 wrote:

It's not Y prices that they are worried about.. It is mainly the NYC-LHR (AA&BA| DL & VS) NYC--FRA (UA&LH) NYC--AMS (DL&AF) NYC--CDG (DL&AF) that he is referring to with J pax. The issue is generally these flights in Biz cost ~$5K+ with advanced booking and ~$10k + if booking less than a week out.

What is your source for the ~5K+ and ~10K+ quote? Is it whatever you find on Expedia or the airline websites? The bulk of the travelers in premium cabins will be traveling in corporate negotiated fares, not the ones you see out there. From that perspective you do not have a case.

Working in finance in NYC our corporate rate was $5 K if booked 2+ weeks out and about $9K within a week out in J. Family works for two different white-shoe law firm law firms in NYC and their rate is usually $6K+ plus for JFK-LHR or JFK-AMS. those fares are flexible tickets though.

gsg013 wrote:

incitatus wrote:

gsg013 wrote:

It's not Y prices that they are worried about.. It is mainly the NYC-LHR (AA&BA| DL & VS) NYC--FRA (UA&LH) NYC--AMS (DL&AF) NYC--CDG (DL&AF) that he is referring to with J pax. The issue is generally these flights in Biz cost ~$5K+ with advanced booking and ~$10k + if booking less than a week out.

What is your source for the ~5K+ and ~10K+ quote? Is it whatever you find on Expedia or the airline websites? The bulk of the travelers in premium cabins will be traveling in corporate negotiated fares, not the ones you see out there. From that perspective you do not have a case.

Working in finance in NYC our corporate rate was $5 K if booked 2+ weeks out and about $9K within a week out in J. Family works for two different white-shoe law firm law firms in NYC and their rate is usually $6K+ plus for JFK-LHR or JFK-AMS. those fares are flexible tickets though.

I've underlined the important point there, and that being a consideration your figures look right to me. It's worth reiterating that in a vast majority of cases large corporations especially in the financial services space require that fully refundable and flexible fares be booked.

dampfnudel wrote:

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

B6 is going over the pond in what type of equipment? The A321s on a consistent basis seems like a bad idea! But that is just me.

Airlines stretching planes to their limits cant be good for the plane long term.

Airlines stretching their funds to their limits can’t be good for the company long term either. B6 needs to be cautious with their expansion to Europe. It should be only their next step, not their last step.

This is certainly sound advise. However a company that's paying cash for their most valuable asset (planes) isn't exactly over extending itself. JB has and continues to pay down debt while paying cash for most of the new aircraft coming onto the property.

CaptCoolHand wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

B6 is going over the pond in what type of equipment? The A321s on a consistent basis seems like a bad idea! But that is just me.

Airlines stretching planes to their limits cant be good for the plane long term.

Airlines stretching their funds to their limits can’t be good for the company long term either. B6 needs to be cautious with their expansion to Europe. It should be only their next step, not their last step.

This is certainly sound advise. However a company that's paying cash for their most valuable asset (planes) isn't exactly over extending itself. JB has and continues to pay down debt while paying cash for most of the new aircraft coming onto the property.

Very true one of the first lessons your will learn in Corporate finance in biz school... Leverage can really help your business grow and if you execute your strategy correctly and the economy doesn't tank leverage can be your best friend... If the skies turn grey and the sea starts rocking leverage can be the determining factor in sinking the ship... B6 has always been financially very conservative... I believe this has something to do with the Mormon routes of the founders.

gsg013 wrote:

CaptCoolHand wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

Airlines stretching their funds to their limits can’t be good for the company long term either. B6 needs to be cautious with their expansion to Europe. It should be only their next step, not their last step.

This is certainly sound advise. However a company that's paying cash for their most valuable asset (planes) isn't exactly over extending itself. JB has and continues to pay down debt while paying cash for most of the new aircraft coming onto the property.

Very true one of the first lessons your will learn in Corporate finance in biz school... Leverage can really help your business grow and if you execute your strategy correctly and the economy doesn't tank leverage can be your best friend... If the skies turn grey and the sea starts rocking leverage can be the determining factor in sinking the ship... B6 has always been financially very conservative... I believe this has something to do with the Mormon routes of the founders.

No offense but our history is a bit different than you may think. We nearly grew out of existence in 07-08 due to our poor handling of our financials and unrestrained growth. The next 4 years was spent cleaning up the mess. I understand the economy at the time. But our leverage at the time was pretty much nonexistent.
JetBlue was lucky to survive. JMO.

I’m glad it did. I really don’t want to find another job.

Why didn’t JetBlue challenge the UA/LH joint venture?

dampfnudel wrote:

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

B6 is going over the pond in what type of equipment? The A321s on a consistent basis seems like a bad idea! But that is just me.

Airlines stretching planes to their limits cant be good for the plane long term.

Airlines stretching their funds to their limits can’t be good for the company long term either. B6 needs to be cautious with their expansion to Europe. It should be only their next step, not their last step.

B6 owns more than 85 percent of its Airbus fleet. If anything, they may try the old Continental secondary city strategy using A321LRs. Also keep in mind that B6 has a much better financial situation with a lot of fully paid off aircraft with high fleet utilization.

I don't expect major cities like London and Paris to be served with wide-bodies, but I could B6 acquiring some B789s for JFK and BOS to: LGW, ORY (seeking U2 feed from each, but also relying on O&D), and TLV (TLV would rely mostly on O&D and connections from LAX). Even with narrower seats on a Dreamliner, and a likely 4-class configuration with a true J and W, B6 would have a competitive product even against LY (B6 is LY's US partner in Cockpit Innovations) with a minimum 32" seat in Y....and such could be used to up-gauge as needed high-demand routes such as JFK-FLL and JFK-SDQ (each being frequently on a 200-seat A321) to free up slots on the JFK end. Likely narrow-body destinations in Europe: GLA or EDI, BHX, OPO (seasonally - in partnership with TP), LIS (year-round), HAM, CGN (seasonal), STR (seasonal), and maybe DUS (seasonal). Flying narrow-bodies there would likely be more competitive against LH's wide-body operations and also take away from a need to get to MUC or FRA.

yonikasz wrote:

Why didn’t JetBlue challenge the UA/LH joint venture?

Probably because they are more interested in flights to London (BA/AA; DL/VS), Paris (DL/AF), and Amsterdam (DL/KL) than Frankfurt.