JetBlue TrueBlue - Dave and Russ comment on E190

A nice article about the future of JetBlue and the E190. Internally we've been told the 190s will go west once the reliability get up to where it should be. The question always asked was where would the go? OAK is the logical choice but we shall see what happens.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/0831biz-jetblue31-ON.html

Several interesting bits in the article...

With the E1990s' reliability improved
Quality reporting and editing :rolleyes:

such as flying from Richmond, Virginia, to Charlotte, North Carolina, Chief Operating Officer Russell Chew said in an interview.
Looks like at least one new route has been "announced."

Nothing about where out west they might be headed.

I'm pretty sure the writer misunderstood Chew. RIC-CLT is most likely not going to be serviced by B6.

Chew probably meant to say that the E190s will be flying more point to point, such as routes from RIC and routes from CLT (as has been seen with the new FLL flights).

OAK is the logical choice but we shall see what happens.


OAK would be a very illogical choice to base the E190's. WN would kill any attempts of B6 to fly places not LGB and the east coast.

I would say a logical place would be SEA. 3-4X daily flights to BUR, ONT, SAN, LGB--if slots avaible--, and possibly adding SNA and LAX later would provide a good opportuninty for B6 to carve a small niche out of AS for west coast flights. The only airline B6 would compete against would be AS--UA has 4X flights to LAX, DL has 3X flights to LAX on ERJ-145's, WN has many through flights to S. California.

B6 would also be able to do a 2X daily schedule from PDX to SAN, BUR, and ONT, 1X daily from GEG and BOI to SAN to not compete against ExpressJet.

Going back east could go through STL, AUS, ORD--from PDX to replace AA who gave up on the route--and other midwest airports

B6 could also add 4-5X daily ANC flights--similar to what Reno Air used to do and provide an alternitive to AS and a minute CO precense.

To complete the PNW focus B6 could approach Skywest about branding their EMB-120 flying to B6 instead of UA. (the EUG airport manager told me that the EUG flying to PDX is at risk by Skywest and I assume that the other PNW flying is the same)

I think that B6 has a significant cost advantadge over AS and that all this flying would not compete against WN. (except the Skywest flights to GEG).

SEA would also be a good place to base planes because there is almost never bad weather. In addition there is room for B6 on the B concourse. (though B6 is taken by CO) and if AS would move their flights from the N concourse to B there would be more than enough room for all this expansion

Another idea of mine, even more unlikely than the SEA focus city is BLI(Bellingham International Airport) flying. BLI is a short 15 minute drive from the Canadian Border and B6 could attract people from the N Seattle suburbs to the southern Vancover suburbs. In fact, White Rock and Surrey--cities on the Canada-United States border--are closer to BLI than YVR(assuming minimal border crossing times). The flight schedule would be 1X daily flight to SAN, BUR or LGB, PHX, possibly a RNO flight, and to ONT(marketed as Palm Springs--PSP). to rotate these EMB190's back into the system there could be a flight to a medium sized midwest city with high demand from YVR and no nonstop flights. I don't have any O/D numbers but I would guess at STL or AUS, with a continuation to FLL and a 0:30-0:45 minute connection to JFK. Alligent Air is already focusing on BLI wit flights to LAS and PSP and the only other flights would be DL to SLC, AS to SEA, and SX to CMH. (BLI being marketed as Seattle/Vancover).

Of course B6 would need to hevially advertise these flights and B6 would probally never do any of these flights, but it is fun to stratragize and hope.

Another idea of mine, even more unlikely than the SEA focus city is BLI(Bellingham International Airport) flying.

I agree that this is highly unlikely. Unlike Alligent or Spirit or USA3000, JetBlue does not seem to be interested in second- (or third-) tier airports in most areas. They prefer to play with the big boys and see what they can do.

The other thing is that they generally try to enter a market without going up against large amounts of direct competition, rather than the SouthWest/PHL approach of just showing up, tossing a ton of planes in and settling in for a siege. Part of this is that they don't have sufficient aircraft to do it, and part of it is that they don't have quite as deep pockets.

As for it being in SEA or BLI, my understanding is that JetBlue has done a pretty minimal job of advertising in SEA to date anyways, so anything they choose to do would require heavy advertising.

OAK would be a very illogical choice to base the E190's. WN would kill any attempts of B6 to fly places not LGB and the east coast.

It really depends on how you view the E190 potential. If you see them as ways of feeding passengers to focus cities for longer haul nonstops, OAK makes a lot of sense. WN is cutting a lot of transcon nonstop service. Furthermore, WN already has a problem dealing with originating passenger volume in OAK. So if you combine the people disgruntled with the WN experience out of OAK, along with the ability of B6 to use E190s to feed traffic to nonstop A320 OAK-(BOS, JFK, IAD, FLL) flights, there is probably opportunity.

I would think the current route system might actually favor an LGB base, since the flights to OAK, SMF, LAS and SLC could become E190 routes right away. Then, perhaps PIT will see some A320s to the west coast. US and WN don't have a nonstop monopoly on that.

...my understanding is that JetBlue has done a pretty minimal job of advertising in SEA to date anyways... I am in SEA and I have posted here re: my frustration that B6 does nothing to cultivate the SEA market. After several years, most locals don't know B6 is here. They're a stealth player.

I think SEA would be a very tough go for JetBlue compared to LGB. First, this is an expensive station to serve even though we rarely see snow days or t-storms. (As you know the fees led WN to try to bolt SEA for nearby Boeing Field, which is all GA/charter/freight, but the Port of Seattle vetoed it.) West coast traffic ex-SEA is dominated by AS/QX, followed by UA/UAX, and both have big corps of loyalists (AS is based here). As I said B6 has no loyalists here because they have no profile here. WN and DL are secondary players in the west coast corridor (WN to OAK/SJC/SMF/BOI/GEG, then connections; DL via SLC) so the market is already pretty competitive.

What matters in these west coast city pairs is frequency. We do business day trips to SFO, LAX and SAN without packing clean shirts and socks. We're not going to want to buy them and hole up in a La Quinta because JetBlue has cancelled its sole northbound 500pm-or-later flight. Yes, AS has deteriorated and constantly fools with its SoCal schedule, but they've got five or six LAX-SEA sections between 500pm and 900pm. From what I see of JetBlue market-entry strategy, they dip one toe in the water and add a second toe if it feels OK. That won't work out of SEA if they want to go up against AS, UA and WN. They'd get killed. But I've never seen B6 do what would have to be done here -- invade a market hammer and tongs like Saddam marching into Kuwait. Timidity will get you killed up here.

LGB seems like a much more logical base. B6 already has some name recognition, there's a mix of business and leisure traffic, and it's a solid destination as well as a market that will contribute traffic. (Who in their right mind wants to visit SEA in January?)

Finally, I think BLI is a pipe dream... Allegiant fills those Vegas specials 3X/4X a week with retirees and border-jumpers, and Skybus is testing the market for cheap tix to CMH with so-far inconclusive results, but that doesn't make it a viable year-round stop for a proper airline, let alone a minihub.

I've asked this before in these forums, but never really got an answer:

Does anyone with solid "inside" knowledge remember or know if it is still part of the plans to "flesh out" the route map (in general, not just in one region of the country) with the 190's?

When the 190 order was announced, the impression was that these birds would be used to connect JFK and other major cities with 2nd and 3rd-tier airports. Did something fundamentally change somewhere along the way??

Allegiant fills those Vegas specials 3X/4X a week with retirees and border-jumpers,
Actually Allegiant now operates BLI-LAS 9X per week. Then there is BLI-RNO 2X/week and the newly announced BLI-IWA flights 2X/week plus the seasonal BLI-PSP.

I agree BLI would not make a good hub, but Allegiant has done a good job of building up their service there.

The cross-border success at BLI is why Allegiant will announce Plattsburgh, NY to Florida on Wednesday. Its only 60 miles south of Montreal.

The cross-border success at BLI is why Allegiant will announce Plattsburgh, NY to Florida on Wednesday. Its only 60 miles south of Montreal. Border-crossers are also why B6 does well out of BTV. Burlington is only about 90 minutes south of Montreal.

I've asked this before in these forums, but never really got an answer:

Does anyone with solid "inside" knowledge remember or know if it is still part of the plans to "flesh out" the route map (in general, not just in one region of the country) with the 190's?

When the 190 order was announced, the impression was that these birds would be used to connect JFK and other major cities with 2nd and 3rd-tier airports. Did something fundamentally change somewhere along the way??

For the rest of this year and the majority of next year I think the 190 will be used to fill in the dots with relatively few new cities. The one thing that Dave has done has put a halt on the aggressive expansion. I'll wager a guess at MAYBE 2 or 3 new cities next year. The 190s role in the company has changed since it was bought.

I don't know about 2nd or 3rd tier flights 2 JFK either. JFK is well beyond saturation point. The amount of traffic has exploded over the past few years and that is something that our new terminal can't solve. Sure it will help crowding but our ability to handle more traffic still just adds to the problem until the ATC problem is fixed.

Unlike Alligent or Spirit or USA3000, JetBlue does not seem to be interested in second- (or third-) tier airports in most areas. They prefer to play with the big boys and see what they can do.

The other thing is that they generally try to enter a market without going up against large amounts of direct competition, rather than the SouthWest/PHL approach of just showing up, tossing a ton of planes in and settling in for a siege.

Can you explain a little further what B6's game plan is?

In the first paragraph you say "prefer to play with the big boys". In the second paragraph you mention "without going against large amounts of competition".

It seems like you're contradicting yourself.

Thx

For the rest of this year and the majority of next year I think the 190 will be used to fill in the dots with relatively few new cities. The one thing that Dave has done has put a halt on the aggressive expansion. I'll wager a guess at MAYBE 2 or 3 new cities next year. The 190s role in the company has changed since it was bought.

I don't know about 2nd or 3rd tier flights 2 JFK either. JFK is well beyond saturation point. The amount of traffic has exploded over the past few years and that is something that our new terminal can't solve. Sure it will help crowding but our ability to handle more traffic still just adds to the problem until the ATC problem is fixed.

So, was what I heard just plain wrong? Did B6 originally plan something different from what they're apparently planning now?

I would think the current route system might actually favor an LGB base.

The route system would favor a LGB base if B6 could convince LGB that the E190 could be used in commuter slots rather than mainline slots. LGB does not have enough mainline slots for an expansion of E190's on the west coast.

I don't have any information on any airline other than what I read hear and know intuitivly so that is why it seems to me that the E190 would not be good based in California. The only cities big enough on the west coast to sustain a E190 base with many flights are SAN, LAX area, SFO-bay area, SMF, PDX, SEA, with PHX and LAS farther inland. SAN has WN to anywhere the E190 would go in addition to slot constraints, LAX area has no slots at LGB or SNA, ONT has ExpressJet, BUR has a short runway and WN, LAX has WN, UA, and DL. Also, B6 is not in LAX yet. SFO has UA with a growing VX in addition to WN just starting. OAK has WN, SJC has WN, SMF has WN, PDX has AS and some WN, SEA has AS with minor WN precense if B6 would stay out of OAK, SJC, SMF, RNO, GEG, and BOI. LAS and PHX both have major WN and US influence and might B6 would be killed in any competing markets by both of those cariers. The only other market would be YVR which if marketed properly could be BLI. Also PAE(Everet Paine field) which has no comercial service could be an experiment that B6 might want to try (a temperary terminal like the one SkyBus put up in St. Augustine.)

B6 has an uphill battle anywhere they might want to base the E190's on the west coast and they will have to be willing to fight for passengers.

If my guess is worth anything, I would have to throw my hat into the SLC ring. B6 has recently added new service to SAN and SFO from SLC. With the E-190, these new routes can be developed nicely as well as other new routes be added (such as SEA, LAS, PHX and maybe ORD if slots were availible).

The route system would favor a LGB base if B6 could convince LGB that the E190 could be used in commuter slots rather than mainline slots. LGB does not have enough mainline slots for an expansion of E190's on the west coast.

The E190 is too big to qualify for the commuter slot.

I am in SEA and I have posted here re: my frustration that B6 does nothing to cultivate the SEA market. After several years, most locals don't know B6 is here. They're a stealth player.

I totaly agree that SEA really needs to be developed more. Just keep in mind that AS and WN will put a fight if there is a lot of service expansion happening. B6 really needs to step up the advertising and add in a couple more west coast cities (maybe LAS, SLC, and OAK/SFO). We'll probably see a couple E190s there but not many.

B6 has an uphill battle anywhere they might want to base the E190's on the west coast and they will have to be willing to fight for passengers.

I totaly agree that SEA really needs to be developed more. Just keep in mind that AS and WN will put a fight... B6 really needs to step up the advertising.
Both quite right -- the key is B6's willingness to fight for passengers and tear them away from the competition with price and frequency and reliability and marketing and a viable FF program, not wait to be discovered by enough customers who (A) dig blue potato chips or (B) couldn't get a seat on their preferred carrier, so they can bump along and eke out a living. In this second phase of its life JetBlue has to be willing to go out and rip the competition up. I've never seen them do that. Simply arriving in a market is no guarantor of success (and they know that from ATL, where B6 folded its tent in a hurry).

The route system would favor a LGB base if B6 could convince LGB that the E190 could be used in commuter slots rather than mainline slots.

LGB can't just change the definition of their slots.

The slot system at LGB is part of a 1995 court settlement from a lawsuit. It was then grandfathered in when federal noise law changed.

Can you explain a little further what B6's game plan is?

In the first paragraph you say "prefer to play with the big boys". In the second paragraph you mention "without going against large amounts of competition".

It seems like you're contradicting yourself.

Thx

Sorry for any confusion my comments caused.

IMO, B6 wants be a major player, including only serving major cities, not secondary and tertiary airports, though the above comment about serving Plattsburgh may prove me wrong.

At the same time, they don't like going in to markets where there is an established existing carrier running high volume on a specific route (e.g. UA on SFO-LAX). They don't have the planes nor the history of throwing a ton of capacity at a new (to them) route the way WN does. This leaves them operating like the way they do out of SEA today - barely a drop in the bucket, but they can say that they have service. As BearX220 noted above, that won't endear them to business travelers, so that won't really help their market share.

Finally, B6 has not traditionally operated with a feeder airline mentality, so using OAK to feed the transcons would be another change of plans.

Just a quick question on the SEA routes. They are obviously full planes that go out most of the time. From the people I talk to, Most SEA residents have zero clue that B6 is a player on the transcon. This is obviously, like PIT, from lack of advertising in the destination city. Does B6 make good money on this route? or is is like AA who operates these routes half ... just to say we are a "player"?

I'd love to see BOS-CHS Not bloody likely though.

[QUOTE=Playsmart;8353555]Just a quick question on the SEA routes. They are obviously full planes that go out most of the time. From the people I talk to, Most SEA residents have zero clue that B6 is a player on the transcon. QUOTE]

That's because B6 doesn't care enough about their 2-3X daily flights to advetise in SEA. The only advertising I have seen is in The New York Timeswhich I get daily. B6 is happy to fill all of their flights with people flying From JFK rather than To JFK.