JetBlue TrueBlue - Boston to New York Shuttle in the future?

From the last portion of an article about Delta and how their removing pillows from there planes... Anotehr reason to fly jetBlue: Pillows!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/business/09delta.html

"Delta could soon face a challenge to its East Coast shuttle, from JetBlue Airways. JetBlue's chief executive, David G. Neeleman, said yesterday in Brazil that the airline planned to start a shuttle between New York and Boston.

Speaking at a conference, Mr. Neeleman said the shuttle would use some of the 100-seat commuter jets under production by Embraer, the Brazilian aircraft company.

According to Bloomberg News, Mr. Neeleman said the shuttle was high on JetBlue's list of uses for its new planes. He added the airline would probably charge about $100 round trip, less than Delta or US Airways generally charge for tickets bought at the last minute."

A Boston to New York shuttle...

That's called a bus!!! :D

Still easier and cheaper to take the Chinese $20 rt bus between NY and BOS.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/03/09/jetblue_plans_100_boston_ny_service/

Problem is that you arrive at JFK, not LGA - not as convenient. They have indicated that this would be on the Embraer jets, as opposed to the Airbuses, they are big enough that they aren't the Barbie Jets. I would think that even with JFK, JetBlue would do well on these flights - there are enough people who know their name now and think they offer a superior product at a value that I would imagine flights would be pretty full. Can't tell if this ends up as anything resembling a money maker, or if they take a loss here for the sake of offering an appealing product.

Problem is that you arrive at JFK, not LGA - not as convenient. They have indicated that this would be on the Embraer jets, as opposed to the Airbuses, they are big enough that they aren't the Barbie Jets. I would think that even with JFK, JetBlue would do well on these flights - there are enough people who know their name now and think they offer a superior product at a value that I would imagine flights would be pretty full. Can't tell if this ends up as anything resembling a money maker, or if they take a loss here for the sake of offering an appealing product.

JFK is only 8 miles past LGA. People seem to think that it is dozens of miles past Laguardia. And you make up the time in the air. There are rarely delays at JFK, while all the times i have flown to LGA, I have ended up circling in the air to make room. And with the new train, it shouldn't be that much of a problem.

JFK is only 8 miles past LGA. People seem to think that it is dozens of miles past Laguardia. And you make up the time in the air. There are rarely delays at JFK, while all the times i have flown to LGA, I have ended up circling in the air to make room. And with the new train, it shouldn't be that much of a problem.



YUP...Ive honestly never had a signifcant delay into JFK. LGA is a tragic story..circling for 25-30 mins, sitting on tarmac for 1-2 hrs..you name it, it can happen at LGA. Im sorry but for <$150 RT from JFK-BOS, Id be all over this flight as would half of my company.

Still easier and cheaper to take the Chinese $20 rt bus between NY and BOS.
Actually, it's now $15 each way, with Greyhound, Fung Wah, and a bunch of other companies all offering hourly (or more often) service.
And don't forget the train service, US Airways Shuttle, and American Eagle (almost a shuttle), and perhaps even Continental, all with options to NYC.

The Acela is 3.5 hours and I don't think it has ever arrived on time. (Just for fun I picked one daily Acela train and tracked its arrival time for a month; never once did it arrive on time.)

This plan makes no sense. JetBlue started in order to provide air service on high-priced routes such as JFK-BUF and JFK-Los Angeles (LGB).

Why would JetBlue want to enter a saturated market? There are already four airlines flying BOS-NYC/EWR. While the walk-up fare during peak times is still relatively high ($200), most people, I guess, pay much less than that. You can get off-peak flights for around 100 bucks.

There are probably 1,000 city pairs out there with no non-stop service having the demand needed to fill these Embraer planes.

Addressing two previous posts:

The Acela is 3.5 hours and I don't think it has ever arrived on time. (Just for fun I picked one daily Acela train and tracked its arrival time for a month; never once did it arrive on time.)

You are correct, there are many occasions that the Acela does not run on time, however, that is not the driving factor for the market sector that frequents the Acela. Things such as hassle, comfort and work ability are the determining criteria. You would be surprised how productive and enjoyable 3.5 hours can be when you have no limits on your use of technology, no airport security headaches, get door-to-door service from Midtown Manhattan to Back Bay or Financial District, a comfortable seat with good legroom, have the option of a quiet reading space and have the option for decent food and unlimited drinks.

Plus, let's not forget. Add in the journeys to/from LGA and BOS, LGA delays, security checks, etc. and I personally do not feel the time difference is all that significant.

This plan makes no sense. JetBlue started in order to provide air service on high-priced routes such as JFK-BUF and JFK-Los Angeles (LGB).

Why would JetBlue want to enter a saturated market? There are already four airlines flying BOS-NYC/EWR. While the walk-up fare during peak times is still relatively high ($200), most people, I guess, pay much less than that. You can get off-peak flights for around 100 bucks.

Keeping what I have written above in mind, I will continue to say that I do think this plan by B6 makes sense. For example, the lowest published fare for any date beyond mid-May on AA, DL, UA, US is currently $190 r/t, $208 r/t mid-week. This price is comparable to the Acela. Therefore, with relatively equal fares, people like me are going to opt for the train for all the reasons above. However, if JetBlue offered me a consistent year-round r/t price of about $100, I would then reconsider my spending habits.

For the crowd that likes flying this route, I think the consistency is key. Sure the big four sometimes offer round trips closer to $100, but the average traveller gets tired of having to find out when its $100, $150 or $225, etc. Knowing that B6 is $50 each way will draw much attention and business.

Secondly, many people I know and I (yes, it is anecdotal, but still worthwhile I think) have high respect for JetBlue, which cannot be said in relation to the four airlines mentioned above.

Also, I think flights between BOS and JFK, not LGA is a good thing. Throw in the fact that there are many New Englanders who want to be able to get to NY to connect to cheap flights to many other destinations not served out of Logan.

All this tells me that this is a good idea. I welcome it and if it comes to pass, I can see myself utilizing both JetBlue and the Acela on this route.


Cheers.

Secondly, many people I know and I (yes, it is anecdotal, but still worthwhile I think) have high respect for JetBlue, which cannot be said in relation to the four airlines mentioned above.

Also, I think flights between BOS and JFK, not LGA is a good thing. Throw in the fact that there are many New Englanders who want to be able to get to NY to connect to cheap flights to many other destinations not served out of Logan.

All this tells me that this is a good idea. I welcome it and if it comes to pass, I can see myself utilizing both JetBlue and the Acela on this route.


Cheers,
Chris
I think portions of your analysis may be somewhat flawed. IMHO, Delta and US Airways shuttle have high reputations, as does American. UA doesn't operate a shuttle but sells through US Airways. UA also has a high reputation with the target audience due to their new Premium Service (PS) transcon flights (www.unitedps.com) Plus, BOS-JFK won't be on B6 mainline, so it won't have the same feel.

And New Englanders connecting in NY? Usually that's for international flights. There's already a good presence of many airlines in BOS. Where would B6 go from JFK (and not have service from BOS) that would attract a lot of connecting pax? Maybe a few carribean destinations or maybe places like PHX and PDX, but most destinations already have nonstop service from BOS on many different airlines. Plus, WN at MHT/PVD may draw those suburban dwellers away from BOS. I'm not sure if pure connections can support numerous BOS-JFK flights. Add in O/D, a few flights, sure. But an hourly (or every two-hour) shuttle...maybe. It'd be really funny if DL Shuttle became Song...but seriously, a 757 is too big for that route.

Even the major airlines, having a significant number of JFK international flights on their own metal or partner airlines, fly BOS-JFK (and PIT-JFK, etc.) only in the afternoon and back. They don't fly all day long, because there isn't the demand. JetBlue would be lucky to get 5 people to fly BOS-JFK who are connecting to an international flight. The Shuttle has always been intended to be O&D, though you can use it to make a connection.

A Song 757 (well, any 757 in all-coach configuration) might be too big for the BOS-LGA Shuttle today, but it won't be too big if Delta has to match a $50 one way fare. I bet that the number of people who would switch from the train or bus (or staying home) to flying for a $50 fare is going to range from a lot to a whole lot!

Even the major airlines, having a significant number of JFK international flights on their own metal or partner airlines, fly BOS-JFK (and PIT-JFK, etc.) only in the afternoon and back. They don't fly all day long, because there isn't the demand. JetBlue would be lucky to get 5 people to fly BOS-JFK who are connecting to an international flight. The Shuttle has always been intended to be O&D, though you can use it to make a connection.

A Song 757 (well, any 757 in all-coach configuration) might be too big for the BOS-LGA Shuttle today, but it won't be too big if Delta has to match a $50 one way fare. I bet that the number of people who would switch from the train or bus (or staying home) to flying for a $50 fare is going to range from a lot to a whole lot!

I don't think Jetblue has any interest in connecting flights. Jetblue already does a shuttle. (I believe every 1.5 to 2 hours in the summer) It is LGB-OAK. There already is a lot of competition in that market, but they have no problem filling seats for 29 each way. And I still don't buy the argument of LGA over JFK. Having flown, many times, from both, I still prefer JFK. It may be 15 minutes closer, but you will most likely be delayed. And what a move for delta that would be. We may lose more money by lowering fares, but we need that marketshare.

P.S. It is a mainline flight. The E190 are not regional jets. Most businessmen don't know the differences of the different planes. They just want comfort. The 190 actually has MORE pitch then the A320(throughout the entire cabin). It is 34". And from what I have heard of the 170, they are really comfortable. I am actually looking forward to this new plane because of its comfort.

I don't think Jetblue has any interest in connecting flights. Jetblue already does a shuttle. (I believe every 1.5 to 2 hours in the summer) It is LGB-OAK. There already is a lot of competition in that market, but they have no problem filling seats for 29 each way. And I still don't buy the argument of LGA over JFK. Having flown, many times, from both, I still prefer JFK. It may be 15 minutes closer, but you will most likely be delayed. And what a move for delta that would be. We may lose more money by lowering fares, but we need that marketshare.

P.S. It is a mainline flight. The E190 are not regional jets. Most businessmen don't know the differences of the different planes. They just want comfort. The 190 actually has MORE pitch then the A320(throughout the entire cabin). It is 34". And from what I have heard of the 170, they are really comfortable. I am actually looking forward to this new plane because of its comfort.

Jet Blue LGB-OAK is hardly a shuttle.

Businessmen don't know the difference between planes? Are you kidding? Do you read these boards? They KNOW the difference between a regional jet and a mainline jet. Having said that, I agree that the 190 is closer to a smallish mainline jet than a regional jet.

Given the way the RASM is going down at Jet Blue, the load factors are going down and their costs are going up - I wouldn't think opening up a money losing route would be a smart move for them.

I think portions of your analysis may be somewhat flawed. IMHO, Delta and US Airways shuttle have high reputations, as does American. UA doesn't operate a shuttle but sells through US Airways. UA also has a high reputation with the target audience due to their new Premium Service (PS) transcon flights (www.unitedps.com) Plus, BOS-JFK won't be on B6 mainline, so it won't have the same feel.

And New Englanders connecting in NY? Usually that's for international flights. There's already a good presence of many airlines in BOS. Where would B6 go from JFK (and not have service from BOS) that would attract a lot of connecting pax? Maybe a few carribean destinations or maybe places like PHX and PDX, but most destinations already have nonstop service from BOS on many different airlines. Plus, WN at MHT/PVD may draw those suburban dwellers away from BOS. I'm not sure if pure connections can support numerous BOS-JFK flights. Add in O/D, a few flights, sure. But an hourly (or every two-hour) shuttle...maybe. It'd be really funny if DL Shuttle became Song...but seriously, a 757 is too big for that route.

Hi bursa,

You may be right and I may be way off base here. One thing I agree completely on, is I don't think it would be necessary for JetBlue to engage in an hourly service. I was simply considering the possibility of them flying the route at all. Also, I don't think these flights would be supported purely by connecting pax as I commented that JetBlue may snag the attention of train passengers.

I am interested in the debate over reputations and target audiences, so please understand I don't mean this as a challenge to your thought, but how have you formed your opinion about what the reputations of US, AA and DL are? I only ask because my own encounters have offered quite contrary information. Thanks.


Cheers.

Jet Blue LGB-OAK is hardly a shuttle.

Businessmen don't know the difference between planes? Are you kidding? Do you read these boards? They KNOW the difference between a regional jet and a mainline jet. Having said that, I agree that the 190 is closer to a smallish mainline jet than a regional jet.

Given the way the RASM is going down at Jet Blue, the load factors are going down and their costs are going up - I wouldn't think opening up a money losing route would be a smart move for them.

3000 people fly the LGA-Bos route each day. I would say maybe 250 people know what kind of plane they are taking. Most businessmen or women want comfort. They could care less if it is a 737 or a 319.

Who says this route is money losing. How do you know they couldn't stimulate traffic that right now isn't there. 24 daily flights to Fort Lauderdale. I don't think there was that much need before. Their costs are going up, but their load factors are still strong. As long as it is above the break even, they are making money.

3000 people fly the LGA-Bos route each day. I would say maybe 250 people know what kind of plane they are taking. Most businessmen or women want comfort. They could care less if it is a 737 or a 319.

Who says this route is money losing. How do you know they couldn't stimulate traffic that right now isn't there. 24 daily flights to Fort Lauderdale. I don't think there was that much need before. Their costs are going up, but their load factors are still strong. As long as it is above the break even, they are making money.


I'm not sure what your basing that on but businessmen/women are a whole lot more saavy then you're giving them credit for, especially those passengers on the DCA-LGA-BOS shuttle. They aren't your typical Jet Blue passenger. A typical business traveler on the shuttle knows that kind of plane they're flying on, they know what amenities are included with the shuttle and they choose it for those reasons.

I never said that this route is losing money - in fact, it's always been quite a lucrative market due to the business traffic. Even on the weekends, the shuttle has made money by selling seats cheaper to attract leisure travelers. Jet Blue isn't on to anything new here, except to price the product at far less than their costs are.

FLL? FLL has always been one of the strongest markets from the NYC area, and vice versa. Jet Blue capitalized on that, and perhaps they even did stimulate a little traffic in this market. Don't forget that Eastern and Jet Blue were running many full L1011's up and down the east coast from FLL-JFK/LGA/EWR for years and doing quite well.

Jet Blue's costs have consistently been going up, their RASM has been going down consistently, as have their load factors. Sure, as long as the majority of their flights are above break even they will make money, but with the load factor falling consistenly, how much longer will this be the case? Now, with a brand new fleet type coming online, and as their employees average seniority creeps up and their Airbus maintenance agreements end, Jet Blue will be facing a whole new reality.

I'm not sure what your basing that on but businessmen/women are a whole lot more saavy then you're giving them credit for, especially those passengers on the DCA-LGA-BOS shuttle. They aren't your typical Jet Blue passenger. A typical business traveler on the shuttle knows that kind of plane they're flying on, they know what amenities are included with the shuttle and they choose it for those reasons.

I never said that this route is losing money - in fact, it's always been quite a lucrative market due to the business traffic. Even on the weekends, the shuttle has made money by selling seats cheaper to attract leisure travelers. Jet Blue isn't on to anything new here, except to price the product at far less than their costs are.

FLL? FLL has always been one of the strongest markets from the NYC area, and vice versa. Jet Blue capitalized on that, and perhaps they even did stimulate a little traffic in this market. Don't forget that Eastern and Jet Blue were running many full L1011's up and down the east coast from FLL-JFK/LGA/EWR for years and doing quite well.

Jet Blue's costs have consistently been going up, their RASM has been going down consistently, as have their load factors. Sure, as long as the majority of their flights are above break even they will make money, but with the load factor falling consistenly, how much longer will this be the case? Now, with a brand new fleet type coming online, and as their employees average seniority creeps up and their Airbus maintenance agreements end, Jet Blue will be facing a whole new reality.

You don't think that Jetblue was prepared for this too come. They knew what costs were going to be ahead of them. It has been made known that Jetblue is an airline that is built for the bad times. Their load factors are still hoverring around the 85% mark, so I don't think that is too much of a concern at the moment. To my memory, I don't believe that there was the capacity that there is now in the NY-South Florida market. Continental, Delta, Song, Jetblue, American, Southwest, Spirit, and US airways, all with many flights to one of the following (PBI, FLL, MIA to EWR, JFK, LGA, ISP, and why not BDL)
Right now, I believe there is a market that has never been tapped before.

I believe that when you said "I wouldn't think opening up a money losing route would be a smart move for them." you were referring to LGA-BOS. There will always be a market between the two cities. I know that Delta and US have strong followings on the route for Miles purposes. But if Jetblue did start this route, I don't think either airline is in the situation to challenge B6. (I wouldn't be shocked to see either one gone by July 06) This is an oppurtunity that Jetblue should not pass up on.

You don't think that Jetblue was prepared for this too come. They knew what costs were going to be ahead of them. It has been made known that Jetblue is an airline that is built for the bad times. Their load factors are still hoverring around the 85% mark, so I don't think that is too much of a concern at the moment. To my memory, I don't believe that there was the capacity that there is now in the NY-South Florida market. Continental, Delta, Song, Jetblue, American, Southwest, Spirit, and US airways, all with many flights to one of the following (PBI, FLL, MIA to EWR, JFK, LGA, ISP, and why not BDL)
Right now, I believe there is a market that has never been tapped before.

I believe that when you said "I wouldn't think opening up a money losing route would be a smart move for them." you were referring to LGA-BOS. There will always be a market between the two cities. I know that Delta and US have strong followings on the route for Miles purposes. But if Jetblue did start this route, I don't think either airline is in the situation to challenge B6. (I wouldn't be shocked to see either one gone by July 06) This is an oppurtunity that Jetblue should not pass up on.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. Jet Blue may have thought they were "built for the bad times" but even they didn't count on fuel rising to $60 per barrel and the tragic events of 9/11. They are not sitting quite as pretty as they had planned to be.

As far as the FLL route goes, during the 80's, PA used to operate from PBI/FLL/MIA-LGA/JFK, EA operated FLL/PBI/MIA-LGA/JFK/EWR/ISP, DL operated FLL/PBI-LGA/JFK, TWA operated MIA/FLL/PBI-LGA/JFK, CO/PE operated FLL/PBI/MIA-EWR, NY operated PBI/FLL-EWR/LGA - all multiple times during the day. DL/PA/EA and TW operated wide bodies on a number of those flights. There were as many nonstops between the NYC area and south Florida during the 80's as there are now. It's always been a booming market.

I think portions of your analysis may be somewhat flawed. IMHO, Delta and US Airways shuttle have high reputations, as does American. UA doesn't operate a shuttle but sells through US Airways. UA also has a high reputation with the target audience due to their new Premium Service (PS) transcon flights (www.unitedps.com) Plus, BOS-JFK won't be on B6 mainline, so it won't have the same feel.

And New Englanders connecting in NY? Usually that's for international flights. There's already a good presence of many airlines in BOS. Where would B6 go from JFK (and not have service from BOS) that would attract a lot of connecting pax? Maybe a few carribean destinations or maybe places like PHX and PDX, but most destinations already have nonstop service from BOS on many different airlines. Plus, WN at MHT/PVD may draw those suburban dwellers away from BOS. I'm not sure if pure connections can support numerous BOS-JFK flights. Add in O/D, a few flights, sure. But an hourly (or every two-hour) shuttle...maybe. It'd be really funny if DL Shuttle became Song...but seriously, a 757 is too big for that route.

If you look at Jetblue's success in achieving very high customer satisfaction it is supposedly anchored on the friendly crew members. While PS is good and Song may be fine, B6 can stand its own.

B6 is thinking seriously before launching a NYC-BOS shuttle. It is an O&D route and not just a connecting route. They understand that they need to provide sufficient frequency though not necessarily the same as US or DL. They are wisely choosing EMBs rather than the 320s. It helps them connect their focus cities (NYC is their #1 city and BOS is targeted as the next big growth city). They are also being careful in not starting the service right away but waiting for the arrival of sufficient new planes as they have very high load factors as is and NYC-BOS needs a critical mass of planes before being added to the network.

I am confident that NYC-BOS will be a success for JBLU. I don't think they will displace US or DL but they don't need to. There is enough of the pie for JBLU and that in the end is what matters to them.

As someone who has been flying BOS-LGA for the last 15 years, and who likely will do 80-100 BOS-LGA segments this year, here is my analysis (for whatever it's worth):

I think a B6 BOS-JFK shuttle service will be successful, but not necessarily at the expense of the DL and US BOS-LGA shuttles.

The vast majority of the passengers on the DL and US shuttles are business travelers who for the most part are price insensitive (most are not paying out of their own pockets). Rather, they choose their flights based on comfort and convenience, which is why AA has not been successful in attracting even AA-elite-level travelers such as myself away from DL and US: I'm not going to give up my comfortable, reliable DL and US flights for uncomfortable and unreliable AA flights (I suspect, based on the loads I have witnessed and the fares that AA charges, that the AA flights are profitible for AA, but I can't imagine the AA flights have put a dent into DL and US's loads). These passengers will not be interested in flying a smaller plane into JFK, even at half the price. (Also keep in mind that many, many DL and US shuttle passengers are not paying full fare, but rather are traveling on negotiated fares as low as $150 r/t, compared to the published walk-up fare of $450 r/t.) Yes, JFK is only eight miles from LGA, but LGA is so much more convenient to Manhattan, and notwithstanding the congestion at LGA, the shuttle flights are remarkably reliable. When they are delayed, it typically is weather related, which of course will affect JFK, too. The DL and US shuttles are highly profitable because so many people are willing to pay $450 r/t for a 35-minute flight. I don't see this changing.

But I don't think that B6 needs to take a lot of passengers from DL and US to be successful. I think that convenient, cheap flights to JFK will attract (1) some DL and US fliers who are flying on deeply discounted fares and who will prefer the relative flexibility of B6 (this will, of course, affect DL and US's profitibility to a limited extent, but as long as DL and US keep the bulk of their business fliers -- as I think they will -- they'll be fine), (2) some Acela passengers who are not currently willing to pay $450 r/t to fly, but would give up the train for a flight that costs no more than the train, (3) some bus passengers who will be willing to pay extra to fly (for those of you who think either the train or the bus is as convenient or as fast as flying, you are just wrong; yes flying adds a little bit of a hassle factor -- although the shuttle operations try to minimize that -- and sometimes the train is a nice alternative when you have the time and just want to relax, but there absolutely is no faster way from anywhere in the Boston area to Manhattan, door to door, than flying), and (4) passengers who would not make the trip at all but for the availability of convenient service and low fares on B6.

I have no doubt that I would utilize a B6 BOS-JFK shuttle service when traveling on my own nickle, but these flights almost certainly would be incremental trips, or would come at the expense of the train or driving, but for my mid-week, not-at-my-expense business trips, look for me on DL and US.

As someone who has been flying BOS-LGA for the last 15 years, and who likely will do 80-100 BOS-LGA segments this year, here is my analysis (for whatever it's worth):

I think a B6 BOS-JFK shuttle service will be successful, but not necessarily at the expense of the DL and US BOS-LGA shuttles.

The vast majority of the passengers on the DL and US shuttles are business travelers who for the most part are price insensitive (most are not paying out of their own pockets). Rather, they choose their flights based on comfort and convenience, which is why AA has not been successful in attracting even AA-elite-level travelers such as myself away from DL and US: I'm not going to give up my comfortable, reliable DL and US flights for uncomfortable and unreliable AA flights (I suspect, based on the loads I have witnessed and the fares that AA charges, that the AA flights are profitible for AA, but I can't imagine the AA flights have put a dent into DL and US's loads). These passengers will not be interested in flying a smaller plane into JFK, even at half the price. (Also keep in mind that many, many DL and US shuttle passengers are not paying full fare, but rather are traveling on negotiated fares as low as $150 r/t, compared to the published walk-up fare of $450 r/t.) Yes, JFK is only eight miles from LGA, but LGA is so much more convenient to Manhattan, and notwithstanding the congestion at LGA, the shuttle flights are remarkably reliable. When they are delayed, it typically is weather related, which of course will affect JFK, too. The DL and US shuttles are highly profitable because so many people are willing to pay $450 r/t for a 35-minute flight. I don't see this changing.

But I don't think that B6 needs to take a lot of passengers from DL and US to be successful. I think that convenient, cheap flights to JFK will attract (1) some DL and US fliers who are flying on deeply discounted fares and who will prefer the relative flexibility of B6 (this will, of course, affect DL and US's profitibility to a limited extent, but as long as DL and US keep the bulk of their business fliers -- as I think they will -- they'll be fine), (2) some Acela passengers who are not currently willing to pay $450 r/t to fly, but would give up the train for a flight that costs no more than the train, (3) some bus passengers who will be willing to pay extra to fly (for those of you who think either the train or the bus is as convenient or as fast as flying, you are just wrong; yes flying adds a little bit of a hassle factor -- although the shuttle operations try to minimize that -- and sometimes the train is a nice alternative when you have the time and just want to relax, but there absolutely is no faster way from anywhere in the Boston area to Manhattan, door to door, than flying), and (4) passengers who would not make the trip at all but for the availability of convenient service and low fares on B6.

I have no doubt that I would utilize a B6 BOS-JFK shuttle service when traveling on my own nickle, but these flights almost certainly would be incremental trips, or would come at the expense of the train or driving, but for my mid-week, not-at-my-expense business trips, look for me on DL and US.

You make a lot of good points, except when you talk about delays. There are days with bad weather where LGA will be delayed for hours or many cancellations, while JFK has delays under 15 mins. This last winter has been atrocious for the northeast, but JFK's operation is much better. This is why Jetblue has such great on time performance and very few cancellations.

You make a lot of good points, except when you talk about delays. There are days with bad weather where LGA will be delayed for hours or many cancellations, while JFK has delays under 15 mins. This last winter has been atrocious for the northeast, but JFK's operation is much better. This is why Jetblue has such great on time performance and very few cancellations.
Certainly both LGA and JFK rank among the most congested U.S. airports, and perhaps you are correct that LGA is worse than JFK, but I have had extraordinarily good luck with the on-time performance of the BOS-LGA shuttles, and have avoided sitting in the parking lot called the Van Wyke. I don't object to JFK the way some do (as I said, I likely would use a B6 BOS-JFK shuttle sometimes), but, all things considered, I -- and most travelers -- just don't find JFK neary as convenient as LGA.

JFK has four runways, LGA has two runways. Bad weather reduces the per-runway maximum arrival rate, so it will impact LGA more than JFK.

Certainly both LGA and JFK rank among the most congested U.S. airports, and perhaps you are correct that LGA is worse than JFK, but I have had extraordinarily good luck with the on-time performance of the BOS-LGA shuttles, and have avoided sitting in the parking lot called the Van Wyke. I don't object to JFK the way some do (as I said, I likely would use a B6 BOS-JFK shuttle sometimes), but, all things considered, I -- and most travelers -- just don't find JFK neary as convenient as LGA.

Hey, everyone has their specific needs. I know there are people who find LGA much more convinient to Manhattan. But there are many businesses out in Long Island who find JFK more convieninet, so you could swing it both ways. There are also many companies that have headquarters close to where I live. (Northern New Jersey) For us, it doesn't make that much of a difference because it is already a 45 minute drive. So maybe, these three shuttles could complement each other. Wouldn't that be a perfect world :)

So maybe, these three shuttles could complement each other. Wouldn't that be a perfect world :)
That's exactly what I think would happen; I think there's room for all three.

NOTHING beats Amtrak. I used to swear by the air shuttles, but not anymore. I can arrive at the train station literally 5 mins before the train departs and still make it. Flying between JFK/LGA and BOS or JFK/LGA and DCA just can't compare anymore.

NOTHING beats Amtrak. I used to swear by the air shuttles, but not anymore. I can arrive at the train station literally 5 mins before the train departs and still make it. Flying between JFK/LGA and BOS or JFK/LGA and DCA just can't compare anymore.
Flying beats Amtrak. Yeah, maybe you can't show up at the airport 5 minutes before departure and expect to make the flight, but door-to-door it's still at least an hour quicker to fly.

Tomorrow morning, I will leave my house at 500a, easily will make the 600am shuttle to LaGuardia, and will be at my desk in NYC no later than 745a (and probably by 730a). If I were to take the first Acela, I would still have to leave my house at 500a, would arrive at Penn Station no earlier than 845a (probably closer to 900a; does the Acela ever run on schedule?), and would not be at my desk until 915a-930a.

[Edited to add: I was off the plane at LGA at 702a this morning -- even with bad weather at both BOS and LGA -- and at my desk at 736a. The good news for Amtrak travelers this morning is that the 520a Acela is only running two minutes late, so it should pull into Penn Station at around 847a.]

Flying beats Amtrak. Yeah, maybe you can't show up at the airport 5 minutes before departure and expect to make the flight, but door-to-door it's still at least an hour quicker to fly.

Tomorrow morning, I will leave my house at 500a, easily will make the 600am shuttle to LaGuardia, and will be at my desk in NYC no later than 745a (and probably by 730a). If I were to take the first Acela, I would still have to leave my house at 500a, would arrive at Penn Station no earlier than 845a (probably closer to 900a; does the Acela ever run on schedule?), and would not be at my desk until 915a-930a.

[Edited to add: I was off the plane at LGA at 702a this morning -- even with bad weather at both BOS and LGA -- and at my desk at 736a. The good news for Amtrak travelers this morning is that the 520a Acela is only running two minutes late, so it should pull into Penn Station at around 847a.]

But on the train you can use your laptop for the entire trip, maybe make some client calls -- in short, get some real work done. Plus get a snack whenever you want it.

But on the train you can use your laptop for the entire trip, maybe make some client calls -- in short, get some real work done. Plus get a snack whenever you want it.
No question the train has its advantages. In fact, I will often take the train when I could use the three-and-a-half hours of uniterrupted time to get some work done. (Unfortunately, the cell service along the route is not at all reliable, but the time is great for catching up on some reading.) But it's quite a stretch to claim, as USFlyerUS does, that, as a result of these advantages, that "NOTHING beats Amtrak," particularly when, from a speed perspective, flying beats Amtrak more than 90% of the time.

I've read everything "official" from JetBlue and nowhere do I see plans for a SHUTTLE. I think they are simply going to have a few flights a day between the cities at a good price, and there are certainly people who need this. Because of AirTrain, JFK is extremely convenient for people on Long Island or near Penn Station in Manhattan, via Jamaica. Next Monday, they are going to close the parking lot in front of T8 and 9 and expect these people to park in the garages in front of T1 or T4 or T7 which is going to make parking hard for everyone. They will do the exact same thing before JetBlue opens T5, so AirTrain is the way to go.

I've read everything "official" from JetBlue and nowhere do I see plans for a SHUTTLE. I think they are simply going to have a few flights a day between the cities at a good price, and there are certainly people who need this.
The Boston Globe atributes the following quote to B6 CEO David Neeleman: ''Clearly, we want high frequency," he said. ''But it's too early to say how many and what frequency."

No question the train has its advantages. In fact, I will often take the train when I could use the three-and-a-half hours of uniterrupted time to get some work done. (Unfortunately, the cell service along the route is not at all reliable, but the time is great for catching up on some reading.) But it's quite a stretch to claim, as USFlyerUS does, that, as a result of these advantages, that "NOTHING beats Amtrak," particularly when, from a speed perspective, flying beats Amtrak more than 90% of the time.

There's more to travel than speed. The hassles of dealing with flying these days makes Amtrak so much more appealing. Plus, if you're going downtown to downtown, Amtrak saves a lot of time. Cabs to the airport, sitting in traffic, etc. is horrible during rush hour in any of the Shuttle cities. And, btw, like the Shuttle really is anymore reliable ontime-wise than Acela. Half the Shuttle flights I take are routinely 30-45 mins late at a minimum. Or, we're sitting at LGA for an hour, circling over PA, etc., all in a cramped seat. And, let's remember DCA-LGA you cannot stand up for any reason.

There's more to travel than speed. The hassles of dealing with flying these days makes Amtrak so much more appealing. Plus, if you're going downtown to downtown, Amtrak saves a lot of time. Cabs to the airport, sitting in traffic, etc. is horrible during rush hour in any of the Shuttle cities. And, btw, like the Shuttle really is anymore reliable ontime-wise than Acela. Half the Shuttle flights I take are routinely 30-45 mins late at a minimum. Or, we're sitting at LGA for an hour, circling over PA, etc., all in a cramped seat. And, let's remember DCA-LGA you cannot stand up for any reason.
First of all, your post was that NOTHING (your emphasis) beats Amtrak. My less hyperbolic statement is that while Amtrak has its advanges, it is not quicker than flying and is plagued by its own problems, namely that Amtrak trains rarely operate on time. The Acela between Boston and NY habitually runs 15 minutes late, and the regional trains are even worse.

Second, it looks as though we are analyzing the shuttle vs. Amtrak on different route. My primary route is BOS-LGA, and it looks like your is DCA-LGA, which does make the time analysis different (although I think flying still is quicker).

Third, the shuttle is exponentially more reliable than the Acela. If half the shuttles you take are 30-45 minutes late, you have incredibly bad luck. I have already flown 25 shuttle segments this year (mostly on US, some on DL), and my on-time percentage easily exceeds 90% (and this is wintertime travel!).

Finally, in my analysis, I factor in travel time to and from the airport or the train station, as the case may be. The shuttle still beats the train for me by at least an hour. Yes, the train runs downtown to downtown, but you still need to factor in time to get to and from the train station.

The difference is that if you are trying to schedule a days worth of meetings in DC or BOS, the train is not an option for your morning journey. You cannot make a meeting in either city before 11:00 if you plan to take the train. Alternatively, you can make a 9:00 meeting in BOS or DC if you are on the 7:00 shuttle or even 7:30 on some days. If you take the 6:30 shuttle, you can make an 8:00 breakfast meeting.

I always fly from LGA to either city and have a return booked, though will switch over to the train if the weather is inclement or the airlines are showing delays.

I think a $100 return trip would not fail. Current
shuttle fares without a Saturday night stay are much higher.
However, service is fantastic, like nothing else domestically.

I think it would create a lot of new passengers. At
this price point is cheaper to fly back and forth every day
than to get a hotel at the other end, and I would probably do
just that.

JFK has a few advatages over LGA. Public transit there
is cheap, fast, and confortable, for LGA it is terrible.
This does not matter for the $500 traveller, but for
the $100 one it sure does. Keep in mind that there are
many people (i.e. millions, more than the population of
Boston) that live closer to JFK than to LGA or ISP.

The only current decent option from JFK is on AA. Crappy
little planes, and a horrible terminal experience, often involving
a bus at BOS. Pricing is terrible also.