JetBlueFA
Feb 11, 08, 7:47 pm
02/12 Flt 9001 Lgb-lax Dep 1200 Arr 1230
02/12 Flt 9022 Lax-lgb Dep 1700 Arr 1730
02/12 Flt 9022 Lax-lgb Dep 1700 Arr 1730
JetBlue TrueBlue - JetBlue coming to LAX in May/Huge SoCal Expansion [Merged Threads]
View Full Version : JetBlue coming to LAX in May/Huge SoCal Expansion [Merged Threads]
JetBlueFA
Feb 11, 08, 7:51 pm
To me it seems like it may have something to do with this, which was released today.
Press Release Source: Los Angeles World Airports
MEDIA ADVISORY: Mayor Villaraigosa to Announce New, Increased Air Service by Major National Low-Cost Airline at Number of Southern California Airports
Monday February 11, 5:42 pm ET
LOS ANGELES, CA--(MARKET WIRE)--Feb 11, 2008 --
WHAT: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa will be joined by
senior officials from Los Angeles World Airports and a
major national low-cost airline at a news conference to
announce significant new service at a number of Southern
California airports.
WHO: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Los Angeles World Airports Executive Director Gina Marie
Lindsey
CEO of major national low-cost airline
WHEN: 12:15 p.m. Pacific Time
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
(Media should arrive between 11 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. for
security screening)
WHERE: Flight Path Learning Center & Museum aircraft ramp area
(tarmac)
LAX Imperial Terminal
6661 Imperial Highway
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Press Release Source: Los Angeles World Airports
MEDIA ADVISORY: Mayor Villaraigosa to Announce New, Increased Air Service by Major National Low-Cost Airline at Number of Southern California Airports
Monday February 11, 5:42 pm ET
LOS ANGELES, CA--(MARKET WIRE)--Feb 11, 2008 --
WHAT: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa will be joined by
senior officials from Los Angeles World Airports and a
major national low-cost airline at a news conference to
announce significant new service at a number of Southern
California airports.
WHO: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Los Angeles World Airports Executive Director Gina Marie
Lindsey
CEO of major national low-cost airline
WHEN: 12:15 p.m. Pacific Time
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
(Media should arrive between 11 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. for
security screening)
WHERE: Flight Path Learning Center & Museum aircraft ramp area
(tarmac)
LAX Imperial Terminal
6661 Imperial Highway
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Seat13c
Feb 11, 08, 8:20 pm
To me it seems like it may have something to do with this, which was released today.
Quote:
Press Release Source: Los Angeles World Airports
MEDIA ADVISORY: Mayor Villaraigosa to Announce New, Increased Air Service by Major National Low-Cost Airline at Number of Southern California Airports
Monday February 11, 5:42 pm ET
LOS ANGELES, CA--(MARKET WIRE)--Feb 11, 2008 --
WHAT: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa will be joined by
senior officials from Los Angeles World Airports and a
major national low-cost airline at a news conference to
announce significant new service at a number of Southern
California airports.
WHO: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Los Angeles World Airports Executive Director Gina Marie
Lindsey
CEO of major national low-cost airline
WHEN: 12:15 p.m. Pacific Time
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
(Media should arrive between 11 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. for
security screening)
Interesting... Not even a recent rumor about this. I remember some unsubstanciated speculation a while back but I didn't expect this some time.
Quote:
Press Release Source: Los Angeles World Airports
MEDIA ADVISORY: Mayor Villaraigosa to Announce New, Increased Air Service by Major National Low-Cost Airline at Number of Southern California Airports
Monday February 11, 5:42 pm ET
LOS ANGELES, CA--(MARKET WIRE)--Feb 11, 2008 --
WHAT: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa will be joined by
senior officials from Los Angeles World Airports and a
major national low-cost airline at a news conference to
announce significant new service at a number of Southern
California airports.
WHO: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Los Angeles World Airports Executive Director Gina Marie
Lindsey
CEO of major national low-cost airline
WHEN: 12:15 p.m. Pacific Time
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
(Media should arrive between 11 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. for
security screening)
Interesting... Not even a recent rumor about this. I remember some unsubstanciated speculation a while back but I didn't expect this some time.
N830MH
Feb 11, 08, 8:34 pm
I'm guess B6 really wants go to LAX instead LGB. I'm sure if B6 will considered which specific routes will be taken from LAX. Do you know what exactly B6 will flies from LAX is:
FLL
PHX
SEA
PDX
BOS
JFK
IAD
MCO
TPA
ORD
SLC
SFO
OAK
SMF
LAS
DEN
CUN
Just keep my fingered crossing for which specifiable routes will be taken from LAX. It should be coming up for big announcement tomorrow. I'm sure B6 will be there at LAX. I'll find out which terminal does B6 will be there. Hopefully if B6 will be very successfully new routes from LAX.
FLL
PHX
SEA
PDX
BOS
JFK
IAD
MCO
TPA
ORD
SLC
SFO
OAK
SMF
LAS
DEN
CUN
Just keep my fingered crossing for which specifiable routes will be taken from LAX. It should be coming up for big announcement tomorrow. I'm sure B6 will be there at LAX. I'll find out which terminal does B6 will be there. Hopefully if B6 will be very successfully new routes from LAX.
Seat13c
Feb 11, 08, 8:52 pm
Very interesting thread (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3840288/#menu26) about this on a.net (FT is still the better forum - we don't charge you be a member:p).
There is a few people speculating that the new service at LAX will be B6 and the E190 will be involved. Is there a way to find out if flt 9001 tomorrow is the E190 or A320?
There is a few people speculating that the new service at LAX will be B6 and the E190 will be involved. Is there a way to find out if flt 9001 tomorrow is the E190 or A320?
N830MH
Feb 11, 08, 9:27 pm
Very interesting thread (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3840288/#menu26) about this on a.net (FT is still the better forum - we don't charge you be a member:p).
There is a few people speculating that the new service at LAX will be B6 and the E190 will be involved. Is there a way to find out if flt 9001 tomorrow is the E190 or A320?
I think it was A320 instead E90. I'm sure B6 will have big announcement tomorrow afternoon at LAX. Let's speculating begin for which specific routes will be taken from LAX. I'm sure B6 will done extremely very well first inauguration flight sometimes in June or July.
There is a few people speculating that the new service at LAX will be B6 and the E190 will be involved. Is there a way to find out if flt 9001 tomorrow is the E190 or A320?
I think it was A320 instead E90. I'm sure B6 will have big announcement tomorrow afternoon at LAX. Let's speculating begin for which specific routes will be taken from LAX. I'm sure B6 will done extremely very well first inauguration flight sometimes in June or July.
caphis
Feb 11, 08, 10:28 pm
It's a 320 tomorrow on the LGB-LAX round. The inbound is a ferry from TUS to LGB.
N830MH
Feb 11, 08, 10:43 pm
It's a 320 tomorrow on the LGB-LAX round. The inbound is a ferry from TUS to LGB.
Thanks! :) I'm sure A320 will have ferried flight from LGB-LAX tomorrow due to news media will be there at LAX.
Thanks! :) I'm sure A320 will have ferried flight from LGB-LAX tomorrow due to news media will be there at LAX.
owflyer
Feb 12, 08, 12:03 am
Rubbing it in, JetBlue president Dave Barger said last week at the ceremony marking the new service in Burbank: "It's no wonder our new advertising slogan is, 'LAX? Don't even go there."
5/31/2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/business/31memo.html?pagewanted=print)
5/31/2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/business/31memo.html?pagewanted=print)
jetBlueNYFL
Feb 12, 08, 12:07 am
Rubbing it in, JetBlue president Dave Barger said last week at the ceremony marking the new service in Burbank: "It's no wonder our new advertising slogan is, 'LAX? Don't even go there."
5/31/2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/business/31memo.html?pagewanted=print)
Yes indeed, how times have changed. I recall Neeleman having similar thoughts regarding SFO way back when.
5/31/2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/business/31memo.html?pagewanted=print)
Yes indeed, how times have changed. I recall Neeleman having similar thoughts regarding SFO way back when.
j3823x
Feb 12, 08, 12:40 am
Following story states 3xJFK and 1xBOS.
http://www2.presstelegram.com/ci_8235615
http://www2.presstelegram.com/ci_8235615
LoneStarMike
Feb 12, 08, 1:38 am
The media advisory makes it sound like LAX won't be the only airport to get new service because it says
Mayor Villaraigosa to Announce New, Increased Air Service by Major National Low-Cost Airline at Number of Southern California Airports
Also, I noticed the article in the Press-Telegram states:
Although Long Beach Airport is capped at 41 daily flights for large commercial jetliners, sources say JetBlue will likely expand its service by offering flights on smaller commuter planes.
I thought the E190 was still too large of an aircraft to qualify for any of the commuter slots at LGB.
Mayor Villaraigosa to Announce New, Increased Air Service by Major National Low-Cost Airline at Number of Southern California Airports
Also, I noticed the article in the Press-Telegram states:
Although Long Beach Airport is capped at 41 daily flights for large commercial jetliners, sources say JetBlue will likely expand its service by offering flights on smaller commuter planes.
I thought the E190 was still too large of an aircraft to qualify for any of the commuter slots at LGB.
prismwiz
Feb 12, 08, 2:21 am
We were all wrong :( (so far)
No SEA focus city
No IAD increase in traffic
No increase in FLL
Just 3X LAX-JFK and 1X LAX-BOS. Does anyone else think this is a direct result of VX entering LAX-JFK? B6 probally saw their BUR and LGB numbers decrease to VX and they are just creating competition.
No SEA focus city
No IAD increase in traffic
No increase in FLL
Just 3X LAX-JFK and 1X LAX-BOS. Does anyone else think this is a direct result of VX entering LAX-JFK? B6 probally saw their BUR and LGB numbers decrease to VX and they are just creating competition.
MAH4546
Feb 12, 08, 3:00 am
The announcement involves four Southern California airports and, IIRC, sixteen daily flights.
LoneStarMike
Feb 12, 08, 6:24 am
From the Los Angeles Times:
California in Brief (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-briefs12feb12,0,6295978.story)
A JetBlue spokesman refused to discuss the plans. But city officials said starting May 21, LAX would see three flights per day to JFK International Airport in New York City and one per day to Logan International Airport in Boston.
JetBlue already flies out of LA/Ontario, Long Beach and Burbank airports. Under the expansion plan, six daily flights would be added in Long Beach, with three apiece to Bob Hope Airport in Burbank and San Diego International Airport.
California in Brief (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-briefs12feb12,0,6295978.story)
A JetBlue spokesman refused to discuss the plans. But city officials said starting May 21, LAX would see three flights per day to JFK International Airport in New York City and one per day to Logan International Airport in Boston.
JetBlue already flies out of LA/Ontario, Long Beach and Burbank airports. Under the expansion plan, six daily flights would be added in Long Beach, with three apiece to Bob Hope Airport in Burbank and San Diego International Airport.
caphis
Feb 12, 08, 8:31 am
We were all wrong :( (so far)
No SEA focus city
SEA will play a part.
No IAD increase in traffic
Don't be so sure. :)
No SEA focus city
SEA will play a part.
No IAD increase in traffic
Don't be so sure. :)
Seat13c
Feb 12, 08, 8:45 am
Man, this is getting juicy!!! :D:D:D
I can't wait to hear the announcement.
I can't wait to hear the announcement.
rightseat
Feb 12, 08, 10:36 am
I'm surprised you people started taking about this, it said in the emails, "Do not post this information on flyertalk or airliners.net"
nsx
Feb 12, 08, 10:46 am
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_8236315
excerpts:
The low cost carrier JetBlue Airways will launch service between Los Angeles International Airport and two East Coast cities beginning in May, while also beefing up flights offered at airports in Long Beach, Burbank and San Diego, according to several sources close to the deal.
JetBlue will offer three daily nonstop flights from LAX to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, and one daily nonstop flight to Logan International Airport in Boston.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, airport officials and JetBlue executives are scheduled to announce the new service during a news conference scheduled for this afternoon at LAX.
excerpts:
The low cost carrier JetBlue Airways will launch service between Los Angeles International Airport and two East Coast cities beginning in May, while also beefing up flights offered at airports in Long Beach, Burbank and San Diego, according to several sources close to the deal.
JetBlue will offer three daily nonstop flights from LAX to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, and one daily nonstop flight to Logan International Airport in Boston.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, airport officials and JetBlue executives are scheduled to announce the new service during a news conference scheduled for this afternoon at LAX.
Seat13c
Feb 12, 08, 10:49 am
I'm surprised you people started taking about this, it said in the emails, "Do not post this information on flyertalk or airliners.net"
First off: What e-mail?
Secondly: If it was some kind of employee only e-mail, the OP didn't post anything that wasn't already made public. Flights plans were already made public via JetBlue's own website. I have no connection to B6 other than being a passanger myself. I was still able to find flight via "Track a flight" on jetblue.com. Also, the OP also posted a press release shot out by LAX, not JetBlue.
So, this brings me to my main question: What exactly are you trying to accomplish by your post?
First off: What e-mail?
Secondly: If it was some kind of employee only e-mail, the OP didn't post anything that wasn't already made public. Flights plans were already made public via JetBlue's own website. I have no connection to B6 other than being a passanger myself. I was still able to find flight via "Track a flight" on jetblue.com. Also, the OP also posted a press release shot out by LAX, not JetBlue.
So, this brings me to my main question: What exactly are you trying to accomplish by your post?
cptlflyer
Feb 12, 08, 10:53 am
Sounds like a direct strike on VX.
rightseat
Feb 12, 08, 11:03 am
Capis seems to know.
The company gives us a little sliver of insight, then you go blow it out on a.net or here. Every email (including the load finder) states, "do not post this information on a.net or FT" That's my problem. We were told to keep this quiet.
The company gives us a little sliver of insight, then you go blow it out on a.net or here. Every email (including the load finder) states, "do not post this information on a.net or FT" That's my problem. We were told to keep this quiet.
FWAAA
Feb 12, 08, 11:14 am
LAX won't cure the Westbound winter fuel stops of the short-legged A320s, but it will prevent Eastbound summer fuel stops: LAX is NEVER as hot as BUR and its long runways permit fully-loaded takeoffs.
Maybe B6 can advertise the LAX-JFK flights as guaranteed nonstops, something B6 cannot do for its BUR and LGB Eastbound flights. If you want a possible unplanned stop in LAS or SLC, fly BUR-JFK. If you really want a nonstop, fly LAX-JFK. :D
Maybe B6 can advertise the LAX-JFK flights as guaranteed nonstops, something B6 cannot do for its BUR and LGB Eastbound flights. If you want a possible unplanned stop in LAS or SLC, fly BUR-JFK. If you really want a nonstop, fly LAX-JFK. :D
Seat13c
Feb 12, 08, 11:23 am
Capis seems to know.
The company gives us a little sliver of insight, then you go blow it out on a.net or here. Every email (including the load finder) states, "do not post this information on a.net or FT" That's my problem. We were told to keep this quiet.
Yeah, he knows. But what did say that would lead one on to something other than speculation. In fact, he and the OP are doing nothing other than getting people excited about today's announce. The only things we know is that the Press Meeting is this afternoon at LAX, there will be new service at LAX (including but not limited to 3 flights to JFK and 1X to BOS), BUR-???, and SAN-???, the mayor of LA will be there, and JetBlue is flying a plane between LGB and LAX. That's it!!! Everything else is hype and speculation. Please, don't be dismayed. Your (presumably) co-workers have not told, uh, confirmed, rather, anything not already public.
The company gives us a little sliver of insight, then you go blow it out on a.net or here. Every email (including the load finder) states, "do not post this information on a.net or FT" That's my problem. We were told to keep this quiet.
Yeah, he knows. But what did say that would lead one on to something other than speculation. In fact, he and the OP are doing nothing other than getting people excited about today's announce. The only things we know is that the Press Meeting is this afternoon at LAX, there will be new service at LAX (including but not limited to 3 flights to JFK and 1X to BOS), BUR-???, and SAN-???, the mayor of LA will be there, and JetBlue is flying a plane between LGB and LAX. That's it!!! Everything else is hype and speculation. Please, don't be dismayed. Your (presumably) co-workers have not told, uh, confirmed, rather, anything not already public.
caphis
Feb 12, 08, 1:53 pm
Capis seems to know.
The company gives us a little sliver of insight, then you go blow it out on a.net or here. Every email (including the load finder) states, "do not post this information on a.net or FT" That's my problem. We were told to keep this quiet.
I wasn't told anything, nor did I receive any e-mail telling me what you've indicated.
The company gives us a little sliver of insight, then you go blow it out on a.net or here. Every email (including the load finder) states, "do not post this information on a.net or FT" That's my problem. We were told to keep this quiet.
I wasn't told anything, nor did I receive any e-mail telling me what you've indicated.
TWA Guy
Feb 12, 08, 1:54 pm
From a.net and jetblue.com
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and Austin, TX (AUS) starts May 1, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and San Jose, CA (SJC) starts May 21, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and Seattle, CA (SEA) starts May 21, 2008.
Los Angeles, CA (LAX) and New York, NY (JFK) starts May 21, 2008.
Los Angeles, CA (LAX) and Boston, MA (BOS) starts May 21, 2008.
Burbank, CA (BUR) and Las Vegas, NV (LAS)starts May 21, 2008.
Burbank, CA (BUR) and Washington, DC (IAD) starts May 21, 2008.
San Diego, CA (SAN) and Seattle, CA (SEA) starts May 21, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and Austin, TX (AUS) starts May 1, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and San Jose, CA (SJC) starts May 21, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and Seattle, CA (SEA) starts May 21, 2008.
Los Angeles, CA (LAX) and New York, NY (JFK) starts May 21, 2008.
Los Angeles, CA (LAX) and Boston, MA (BOS) starts May 21, 2008.
Burbank, CA (BUR) and Las Vegas, NV (LAS)starts May 21, 2008.
Burbank, CA (BUR) and Washington, DC (IAD) starts May 21, 2008.
San Diego, CA (SAN) and Seattle, CA (SEA) starts May 21, 2008.
PepsiAddict
Feb 12, 08, 1:55 pm
Well heres some interesting stuff that just went up on http://www.jetblue.com/wherewefly/ ...
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and Austin, TX (AUS) starts May 1, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and San Jose, CA (SJC) starts May 21, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and Seattle, CA (SEA) starts May 21, 2008.
Los Angeles, CA (LAX) and New York, NY (JFK) starts May 21, 2008.
Los Angeles, CA (LAX) and Boston, MA (BOS) starts May 21, 2008.
Burbank, CA (BUR) and Las Vegas, NV (LAS)starts May 21, 2008.
Burbank, CA (BUR) and Washington, DC (IAD) starts May 21, 2008.
San Diego, CA (SAN) and Seattle, CA (SEA) starts May 21, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and Austin, TX (AUS) starts May 1, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and San Jose, CA (SJC) starts May 21, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and Seattle, CA (SEA) starts May 21, 2008.
Los Angeles, CA (LAX) and New York, NY (JFK) starts May 21, 2008.
Los Angeles, CA (LAX) and Boston, MA (BOS) starts May 21, 2008.
Burbank, CA (BUR) and Las Vegas, NV (LAS)starts May 21, 2008.
Burbank, CA (BUR) and Washington, DC (IAD) starts May 21, 2008.
San Diego, CA (SAN) and Seattle, CA (SEA) starts May 21, 2008.
jetBlueNYFL
Feb 12, 08, 2:00 pm
The PR is not even out yet, probably any minute though. The following routes are bookable and appear on the route map:
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and Austin, TX (AUS) starts May 1, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and San Jose, CA (SJC) starts May 21, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and Seattle, CA (SEA) starts May 21, 2008.
Los Angeles, CA (LAX) and New York, NY (JFK) starts May 21, 2008.
Los Angeles, CA (LAX) and Boston, MA (BOS) starts May 21, 2008.
Burbank, CA (BUR) and Las Vegas, NV (LAS)starts May 21, 2008.
Burbank, CA (BUR) and Washington, DC (IAD) starts May 21, 2008.
San Diego, CA (SAN) and Seattle, CA (SEA) starts May 21, 2008.
Guess last night's "rumor" was very true.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and Austin, TX (AUS) starts May 1, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and San Jose, CA (SJC) starts May 21, 2008.
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and Seattle, CA (SEA) starts May 21, 2008.
Los Angeles, CA (LAX) and New York, NY (JFK) starts May 21, 2008.
Los Angeles, CA (LAX) and Boston, MA (BOS) starts May 21, 2008.
Burbank, CA (BUR) and Las Vegas, NV (LAS)starts May 21, 2008.
Burbank, CA (BUR) and Washington, DC (IAD) starts May 21, 2008.
San Diego, CA (SAN) and Seattle, CA (SEA) starts May 21, 2008.
Guess last night's "rumor" was very true.
caphis
Feb 12, 08, 2:04 pm
As this information is now publicly available on jetblue.com (http://www.jetblue.com/wherewefly/, as well as in the ticket booking process), and has been broken in several major media outlets, here it is for your enjoyment:
LAX-JFK - flight 670 departs 7:00 am, arrives 3:40 pm (A320)
LAX-JFK - flight 672 departs 12:20 pm, arrives 9:00 pm (A320)
LAX-BOS - flight 480 departs 3:05 pm, arrives 11:40 pm (A320)
LAX-JFK - flight 674 departs 9:50 pm, arrives 6:30 am (A320)
JFK-LAX - flight 673 - departs 8:15 am, arrives 11:25 pm (A320)
JFK-LAX - flight 675 - departs 11:00 am, arrives 2:10 pm (A320)
JFK-LAX - flight 679 - departs 5:45 pm, arrives 8:55 pm (A320)
BOS-LAX - flight 479 - departs 6:55 pm, arrives 10:10 pm (A320)
LGB-AUS - flight 1416 - departs 10:15 am, arrives 3:15 pm (E190)
AUS-LGB - flight 1417 - departs 6:00 pm, arrives 7:05 pm (E190)
LGB-SJC - flight 220 - departs 7:00 am, arrives 8:15 pm (A320)
LGB-SJC - flight 224 - departs 1:50 pm, arrives 3:05 pm (E190)
LGB-SJC - flight 226 - departs 5:15 pm, arrives 6:30 pm (A320)
SJC-LGB - flight 223 - departs 8:55 am, arrives 10:15 am (A320)
SJC-LGB - flight 225 - departs 3:40 pm, arrives 4:55 pm (E190)
SJC-LGB - flight 227 - departs 7:45 pm, arrives 9:00 pm (A320)
LGB-SEA - flight 294 - departs 6:55 am, arrives 9:35 am (E190)
LGB-SEA - flight 296 - departs 6:20 pm, arrives 8:55 pm (A320)
SEA-LGB - flight 293 - departs 10:20 am, arrives 1:10 pm (E190)
SEA-LGB - flight 295 - departs 4:00 pm, arrives 6:45 pm (A320)
SEA-SAN - flight 279 - departs 6:40 pm, arrives 9:25 pm (A320)
SAN-SEA - flight 276 - departs 3:00 pm, arrives 5:45 pm (A320)
BUR-IAD - flight 322 - departs 8:25 am, arrives 4:20 pm (A320)
BUR-IAD - flight 326 - departs 9:05 pm, arrives 5:00 am (A320)
IAD-BUR - flight 325 - departs 10:30 am, arrives 1:00 pm (A320)
IAD-BUR - flight 327 - departs 7:05 pm, arrives 9:35 pm (A320)
LAX-JFK - flight 670 departs 7:00 am, arrives 3:40 pm (A320)
LAX-JFK - flight 672 departs 12:20 pm, arrives 9:00 pm (A320)
LAX-BOS - flight 480 departs 3:05 pm, arrives 11:40 pm (A320)
LAX-JFK - flight 674 departs 9:50 pm, arrives 6:30 am (A320)
JFK-LAX - flight 673 - departs 8:15 am, arrives 11:25 pm (A320)
JFK-LAX - flight 675 - departs 11:00 am, arrives 2:10 pm (A320)
JFK-LAX - flight 679 - departs 5:45 pm, arrives 8:55 pm (A320)
BOS-LAX - flight 479 - departs 6:55 pm, arrives 10:10 pm (A320)
LGB-AUS - flight 1416 - departs 10:15 am, arrives 3:15 pm (E190)
AUS-LGB - flight 1417 - departs 6:00 pm, arrives 7:05 pm (E190)
LGB-SJC - flight 220 - departs 7:00 am, arrives 8:15 pm (A320)
LGB-SJC - flight 224 - departs 1:50 pm, arrives 3:05 pm (E190)
LGB-SJC - flight 226 - departs 5:15 pm, arrives 6:30 pm (A320)
SJC-LGB - flight 223 - departs 8:55 am, arrives 10:15 am (A320)
SJC-LGB - flight 225 - departs 3:40 pm, arrives 4:55 pm (E190)
SJC-LGB - flight 227 - departs 7:45 pm, arrives 9:00 pm (A320)
LGB-SEA - flight 294 - departs 6:55 am, arrives 9:35 am (E190)
LGB-SEA - flight 296 - departs 6:20 pm, arrives 8:55 pm (A320)
SEA-LGB - flight 293 - departs 10:20 am, arrives 1:10 pm (E190)
SEA-LGB - flight 295 - departs 4:00 pm, arrives 6:45 pm (A320)
SEA-SAN - flight 279 - departs 6:40 pm, arrives 9:25 pm (A320)
SAN-SEA - flight 276 - departs 3:00 pm, arrives 5:45 pm (A320)
BUR-IAD - flight 322 - departs 8:25 am, arrives 4:20 pm (A320)
BUR-IAD - flight 326 - departs 9:05 pm, arrives 5:00 am (A320)
IAD-BUR - flight 325 - departs 10:30 am, arrives 1:00 pm (A320)
IAD-BUR - flight 327 - departs 7:05 pm, arrives 9:35 pm (A320)
Seat13c
Feb 12, 08, 2:05 pm
Here's the press release (http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1107420&highlight=).
sfozrhfco
Feb 12, 08, 2:21 pm
Now if we could just get SFO connected up with BUR :cool:
dinosims
Feb 12, 08, 2:23 pm
Hah - someone needs some geography lessons :)
Seattle, CA (SEA)?
Seattle, CA (SEA)?
Seat13c
Feb 12, 08, 2:38 pm
Hah - someone needs some geography lessons :)
Seattle, CA (SEA)?
Are they trying to make SEA part of SoCal? Maybe someone has been spending too much time in the sun in SoCal. :D
Seattle, CA (SEA)?
Are they trying to make SEA part of SoCal? Maybe someone has been spending too much time in the sun in SoCal. :D
olympicnut
Feb 12, 08, 2:45 pm
It'll be interesting to see if the BUR-IAD flights work out for them. Remember the BUR-MCO flights? Those didn't last long and I thought for sure those would have lasted.
I wonder if fares will go down LAX-BOS with the other carriers. That would be a blessing as I fly to BOS a couple times a year now.
BUR-LAS head to head with WN ought to be interesting too. Looks like a cat fight in the Valley is about to happen :p
I wonder if fares will go down LAX-BOS with the other carriers. That would be a blessing as I fly to BOS a couple times a year now.
BUR-LAS head to head with WN ought to be interesting too. Looks like a cat fight in the Valley is about to happen :p
Seat13c
Feb 12, 08, 2:53 pm
It'll be interesting to see if the BUR-IAD flights work out for them. Remember the BUR-MCO flights? Those didn't last long and I thought for sure those would have lasted.
I wonder if fares will go down LAX-BOS with the other carriers. That would be a blessing as I fly to BOS a couple times a year now.
BUR-LAS head to head with WN ought to be interesting too. Looks like a cat fight in the Valley is about to happen :p
BUR-LAS was a route that B6 did fly before. They used the same aircraft as the MCO-BUR route. When B6 dropped MCO-BUR, they were forced to drop the LAS route b/c the aircraft had to be reallocated elsewhere.
I wonder if fares will go down LAX-BOS with the other carriers. That would be a blessing as I fly to BOS a couple times a year now.
BUR-LAS head to head with WN ought to be interesting too. Looks like a cat fight in the Valley is about to happen :p
BUR-LAS was a route that B6 did fly before. They used the same aircraft as the MCO-BUR route. When B6 dropped MCO-BUR, they were forced to drop the LAS route b/c the aircraft had to be reallocated elsewhere.
N830MH
Feb 12, 08, 3:20 pm
BUR-LAS was a route that B6 did fly before. They used the same aircraft as the MCO-BUR route. When B6 dropped MCO-BUR, they were forced to drop the LAS route b/c the aircraft had to be reallocated elsewhere.
Yes, of course. I certainly remember what exactly B6 has been discontinuation from BUR-LAS/MCO around in late-2006. Because the loads wasn't doing extremely very well. Now on, B6 has been reinstated from BUR-LAS this time. Hopefully if B6 doesn't have changed some specifiable routes. What about other specific routes does not have anymore new routes from LGB/SAN/LAX-PHX/SFO/OAK/LAS/DEN/FLL/MCO/TPA this time. Maybe you probably will see next another announcement sometimes in summer 2008.
Yes, of course. I certainly remember what exactly B6 has been discontinuation from BUR-LAS/MCO around in late-2006. Because the loads wasn't doing extremely very well. Now on, B6 has been reinstated from BUR-LAS this time. Hopefully if B6 doesn't have changed some specifiable routes. What about other specific routes does not have anymore new routes from LGB/SAN/LAX-PHX/SFO/OAK/LAS/DEN/FLL/MCO/TPA this time. Maybe you probably will see next another announcement sometimes in summer 2008.
Seat13c
Feb 12, 08, 3:37 pm
Not to be a "kill joy", but I wouldn't expect too many more sizeable announcements this year. This was pretty big considering that Barger wants to keep their growth slow and steady.
On a side note, I'm suprised DEN didn't make the cut.
On a side note, I'm suprised DEN didn't make the cut.
N830MH
Feb 12, 08, 4:40 pm
Not to be a "kill joy", but I wouldn't expect too many more sizeable announcements this year. This was pretty big considering that Barger wants to keep their growth slow and steady.
On a side note, I'm suprised DEN didn't make the cut.
You meant B6 has still flies from DEN-JFK/BOS? I think that I knew dailies flight 2x daily DEN-JFK & 1x daily DEN-BOS, am I correct?
On a side note, I'm suprised DEN didn't make the cut.
You meant B6 has still flies from DEN-JFK/BOS? I think that I knew dailies flight 2x daily DEN-JFK & 1x daily DEN-BOS, am I correct?
dieuwer2
Feb 12, 08, 4:44 pm
I am surprised at LAX-BOS and LAX-JFK. I thought that new TC flights were no-no due to the high oil price? Additionally, these two routes will now be served by 6 (!) airlines. Overkill?
FWAAA
Feb 12, 08, 4:55 pm
I am surprised at LAX-BOS and LAX-JFK. I thought that new TC flights were no-no due to the high oil price? Additionally, these two routes will now be served by 6 (!) airlines. Overkill?
I predict some bloodshed on the transcons. Look for UA and AA to offer mega-mile bonus bonanzas to their frequent flyers in addition to fare matches. Live TV and a few inches of pitch v. upgrades and free tickets. It should be an interesting summer. :)
I predict some bloodshed on the transcons. Look for UA and AA to offer mega-mile bonus bonanzas to their frequent flyers in addition to fare matches. Live TV and a few inches of pitch v. upgrades and free tickets. It should be an interesting summer. :)
201flyer
Feb 12, 08, 5:40 pm
I am surprised at LAX-BOS and LAX-JFK. I thought that new TC flights were no-no due to the high oil price? Additionally, these two routes will now be served by 6 (!) airlines. Overkill?
LAX-JFK, LAX-BOS and BUR-IAD are not new transcon frequencies. They are all to be shifted from LGB, which will free up slots for the new LGB flights to SEA, SJC and AUS.
Here is a link giving more info on JetBlue's schedule changes at LGB:
http://www.lbreport.com/news/feb08/jbnu.htm
LAX-JFK, LAX-BOS and BUR-IAD are not new transcon frequencies. They are all to be shifted from LGB, which will free up slots for the new LGB flights to SEA, SJC and AUS.
Here is a link giving more info on JetBlue's schedule changes at LGB:
http://www.lbreport.com/news/feb08/jbnu.htm
jeffreyt
Feb 12, 08, 5:49 pm
Do we really believe BUR-IAD can be successful?
N830MH
Feb 12, 08, 5:51 pm
LAX-JFK, LAX-BOS and BUR-IAD are not new transcon frequencies. They are all to be shifted from LGB, which will free up slots for the new LGB flights to SEA, SJC and AUS.
Do you know what exactly talking about slots restrictions at LGB? I think B6 will shifting some those flights from LGB to LAX-JFK/BOS & BUR-IAD, too. I'm sure if LGB will be freed up more slots for AUS, SEA & SJC, too. What about other flights does still flies from FLL/SMF/OAK/ORD-LGB?
Do you know what exactly talking about slots restrictions at LGB? I think B6 will shifting some those flights from LGB to LAX-JFK/BOS & BUR-IAD, too. I'm sure if LGB will be freed up more slots for AUS, SEA & SJC, too. What about other flights does still flies from FLL/SMF/OAK/ORD-LGB?
N830MH
Feb 12, 08, 5:53 pm
Do we really believe BUR-IAD can be successful?
Yes, of course they will. I'm sure B6 will done extremely very well from BUR-IAD. Isn't B6 has inauguration from BUR-IAD first-ever nonstop?
Yes, of course they will. I'm sure B6 will done extremely very well from BUR-IAD. Isn't B6 has inauguration from BUR-IAD first-ever nonstop?
Seat13c
Feb 12, 08, 6:13 pm
You meant B6 has still flies from DEN-JFK/BOS? I think that I knew dailies flight 2x daily DEN-JFK & 1x daily DEN-BOS, am I correct?
Yes, B6 does fly B0S/JFK-DEN. I was referring to starting something like LGB or LAX-DEN
Yes, B6 does fly B0S/JFK-DEN. I was referring to starting something like LGB or LAX-DEN
dieuwer2
Feb 12, 08, 6:35 pm
Sounds like a direct strike on VX.
It seems like that.
Anyhow, I do not see how VX is going to survive. They have to compete against B6 and legacy airlines in SFO, and now this in LAX.
It seems like that.
Anyhow, I do not see how VX is going to survive. They have to compete against B6 and legacy airlines in SFO, and now this in LAX.
N830MH
Feb 12, 08, 6:46 pm
Are they trying to make SEA part of SoCal? Maybe someone has been spending too much time in the sun in SoCal. :D
No, they don't. They are not part of SoCal at all. Because SEA is in the state of Washington. ok? Thank you for your understandable from specific cities. :)
No, they don't. They are not part of SoCal at all. Because SEA is in the state of Washington. ok? Thank you for your understandable from specific cities. :)
Seat13c
Feb 12, 08, 7:07 pm
No, they don't. They are not part of SoCal at all. Because SEA is in the state of Washington. ok? Thank you for your understandable from specific cities. :)
I was just kiddin'... 0nly joking.
I was just kiddin'... 0nly joking.
N830MH
Feb 12, 08, 7:15 pm
I was just kiddin'... 0nly joking.
sure, no problems. :p
sure, no problems. :p
LoneStarMike
Feb 12, 08, 7:33 pm
Am I imagining things, or is SAN also getting a third daily roundtrip to JFK starting May 1? April 30 I only see two, but May 1 there are 3.
April 30, 2008
JFK-SAN
Dep 09:10 - Arr 12:30
Dep 17:50 - Arr 21:25
SAN-JFK
Dep 13:25 - Arr 21:50
Dep 21:20 - Arr 05:22
===================
May 1, 2008
JFK-SAN
Dep 08:30 - Arr 11:30
Dep 11:00 - Arr 13:30
Dep 18:00 - Arr 21:27
SAN-JFK
Dep 12:25 - Arr 21:00
Dep 14:45 - Arr 23:10
Dep 21:05 - Arr 05:15
edited to add: Never mind. Someone indicated that this is a seasonal flight that has operated the last couple of years.
Mike
April 30, 2008
JFK-SAN
Dep 09:10 - Arr 12:30
Dep 17:50 - Arr 21:25
SAN-JFK
Dep 13:25 - Arr 21:50
Dep 21:20 - Arr 05:22
===================
May 1, 2008
JFK-SAN
Dep 08:30 - Arr 11:30
Dep 11:00 - Arr 13:30
Dep 18:00 - Arr 21:27
SAN-JFK
Dep 12:25 - Arr 21:00
Dep 14:45 - Arr 23:10
Dep 21:05 - Arr 05:15
edited to add: Never mind. Someone indicated that this is a seasonal flight that has operated the last couple of years.
Mike
N830MH
Feb 12, 08, 8:00 pm
Yep, sure did. B6 has been added more third flight JFK-SAN during summer seasonal. I'm sure if B6 will considered more new routes from SAN-FLL anytime soon. Because it was over 300 dailies passengers from FLL-SAN. Hopefully if B6 will gets new routes. It will keep to confidence from B6. It was seen more reasonable will you see more new service sometimes in the future.
LoneStarMike
Feb 12, 08, 8:43 pm
Yep, sure did. B6 has been added more third flight JFK-SAN during summer seasonal.
So I'm assuming that the A320 being used for that third seasonal flight between JFK-SAN is the same plane that's being used for the seasonal service between SAN-SEA.
Mike
So I'm assuming that the A320 being used for that third seasonal flight between JFK-SAN is the same plane that's being used for the seasonal service between SAN-SEA.
Mike
aaron1262
Feb 12, 08, 9:08 pm
SO...the SEA-SAN is seasonal?. I wonder if they're going to keep the afternoon JFK flight year-round since right now it's operated during the summer months.
N830MH
Feb 12, 08, 9:16 pm
SO...the SEA-SAN is seasonal?. I wonder if they're going to keep the afternoon JFK flight year-round since right now it's operated during the summer months.
Yes, it's seasonal. If B6 will be extended for all-year round long for SEA-SAN. If B6 will done extremely very well for SEA-SAN. I'm sure if they will have another announcement coming soon in summer 2008.
Yes, it's seasonal. If B6 will be extended for all-year round long for SEA-SAN. If B6 will done extremely very well for SEA-SAN. I'm sure if they will have another announcement coming soon in summer 2008.
JetBlueFA
Feb 12, 08, 9:51 pm
I tried to post as soon as the official announcement came out but was stuck all afternoon on an MX delay. JFK/BOS-AUS-LGB is how the 190s will be routed to get out west (sure you already knew that) buti'm really suprised that this was so sealed tight that nobody knew about it. I figured something was up with the rumor on A.net and then finding the ferry flight going to LAX but I had no idea it was this involved. It's nice to see us expanding out west with the 190s and 320s! Has anybody got any inside information as to which terminal we will be using at LAX?
Cheers from Tornado ridden South Florida!!
Cheers from Tornado ridden South Florida!!
N830MH
Feb 12, 08, 10:03 pm
I tried to post as soon as the official announcement came out but was stuck all afternoon on an MX delay. JFK/BOS-AUS-LGB is how the 190s will be routed to get out west (sure you already knew that) buti'm really suprised that this was so sealed tight that nobody knew about it. I figured something was up with the rumor on A.net and then finding the ferry flight going to LAX but I had no idea it was this involved. It's nice to see us expanding out west with the 190s and 320s! Has anybody got any inside information as to which terminal we will be using at LAX?
Cheers from Tornado ridden South Florida!!
Yes, B6 will be operated in terminal 6 at LAX. I am not sure which gates number is that for B6 will being used. I'll find out if I can hear more gates detail information.
Cheers from Tornado ridden South Florida!!
Yes, B6 will be operated in terminal 6 at LAX. I am not sure which gates number is that for B6 will being used. I'll find out if I can hear more gates detail information.
JetBlueFA
Feb 12, 08, 10:06 pm
Yes, B6 will be operated in terminal 6 at LAX. I am not sure which gates number is that for B6 will being used. I'll find out if I can hear more gates detail information.
Thanx! I've been out of the loop all day! :)
Thanx! I've been out of the loop all day! :)
N830MH
Feb 12, 08, 10:08 pm
As this information is now publicly available on jetblue.com (http://www.jetblue.com/wherewefly/, as well as in the ticket booking process), and has been broken in several major media outlets, here it is for your enjoyment:
LAX-JFK - flight 670 departs 7:00 am, arrives 3:40 pm (A320)
LAX-JFK - flight 672 departs 12:20 pm, arrives 9:00 pm (A320)
LAX-BOS - flight 480 departs 3:05 pm, arrives 11:40 pm (A320)
LAX-JFK - flight 674 departs 9:50 pm, arrives 6:30 am (A320)
JFK-LAX - flight 673 - departs 8:15 am, arrives 11:25 pm (A320)
JFK-LAX - flight 675 - departs 11:00 am, arrives 2:10 pm (A320)
JFK-LAX - flight 679 - departs 5:45 pm, arrives 8:55 pm (A320)
BOS-LAX - flight 479 - departs 6:55 pm, arrives 10:10 pm (A320)
LGB-AUS - flight 1416 - departs 10:15 am, arrives 3:15 pm (E190)
AUS-LGB - flight 1417 - departs 6:00 pm, arrives 7:05 pm (E190)
LGB-SJC - flight 220 - departs 7:00 am, arrives 8:15 pm (A320)
LGB-SJC - flight 224 - departs 1:50 pm, arrives 3:05 pm (E190)
LGB-SJC - flight 226 - departs 5:15 pm, arrives 6:30 pm (A320)
SJC-LGB - flight 223 - departs 8:55 am, arrives 10:15 am (A320)
SJC-LGB - flight 225 - departs 3:40 pm, arrives 4:55 pm (E190)
SJC-LGB - flight 227 - departs 7:45 pm, arrives 9:00 pm (A320)
LGB-SEA - flight 294 - departs 6:55 am, arrives 9:35 am (E190)
LGB-SEA - flight 296 - departs 6:20 pm, arrives 8:55 pm (A320)
SEA-LGB - flight 293 - departs 10:20 am, arrives 1:10 pm (E190)
SEA-LGB - flight 295 - departs 4:00 pm, arrives 6:45 pm (A320)
SEA-SAN - flight 279 - departs 6:40 pm, arrives 9:25 pm (A320)
SAN-SEA - flight 276 - departs 3:00 pm, arrives 5:45 pm (A320)
BUR-IAD - flight 322 - departs 8:25 am, arrives 4:20 pm (A320)
BUR-IAD - flight 326 - departs 9:05 pm, arrives 5:00 am (A320)
IAD-BUR - flight 325 - departs 10:30 am, arrives 1:00 pm (A320)
IAD-BUR - flight 327 - departs 7:05 pm, arrives 9:35 pm (A320)
Also, I think you meant forgotten for BUR-LAS, too. Please adds these list for me. Thanks! :)
LAX-JFK - flight 670 departs 7:00 am, arrives 3:40 pm (A320)
LAX-JFK - flight 672 departs 12:20 pm, arrives 9:00 pm (A320)
LAX-BOS - flight 480 departs 3:05 pm, arrives 11:40 pm (A320)
LAX-JFK - flight 674 departs 9:50 pm, arrives 6:30 am (A320)
JFK-LAX - flight 673 - departs 8:15 am, arrives 11:25 pm (A320)
JFK-LAX - flight 675 - departs 11:00 am, arrives 2:10 pm (A320)
JFK-LAX - flight 679 - departs 5:45 pm, arrives 8:55 pm (A320)
BOS-LAX - flight 479 - departs 6:55 pm, arrives 10:10 pm (A320)
LGB-AUS - flight 1416 - departs 10:15 am, arrives 3:15 pm (E190)
AUS-LGB - flight 1417 - departs 6:00 pm, arrives 7:05 pm (E190)
LGB-SJC - flight 220 - departs 7:00 am, arrives 8:15 pm (A320)
LGB-SJC - flight 224 - departs 1:50 pm, arrives 3:05 pm (E190)
LGB-SJC - flight 226 - departs 5:15 pm, arrives 6:30 pm (A320)
SJC-LGB - flight 223 - departs 8:55 am, arrives 10:15 am (A320)
SJC-LGB - flight 225 - departs 3:40 pm, arrives 4:55 pm (E190)
SJC-LGB - flight 227 - departs 7:45 pm, arrives 9:00 pm (A320)
LGB-SEA - flight 294 - departs 6:55 am, arrives 9:35 am (E190)
LGB-SEA - flight 296 - departs 6:20 pm, arrives 8:55 pm (A320)
SEA-LGB - flight 293 - departs 10:20 am, arrives 1:10 pm (E190)
SEA-LGB - flight 295 - departs 4:00 pm, arrives 6:45 pm (A320)
SEA-SAN - flight 279 - departs 6:40 pm, arrives 9:25 pm (A320)
SAN-SEA - flight 276 - departs 3:00 pm, arrives 5:45 pm (A320)
BUR-IAD - flight 322 - departs 8:25 am, arrives 4:20 pm (A320)
BUR-IAD - flight 326 - departs 9:05 pm, arrives 5:00 am (A320)
IAD-BUR - flight 325 - departs 10:30 am, arrives 1:00 pm (A320)
IAD-BUR - flight 327 - departs 7:05 pm, arrives 9:35 pm (A320)
Also, I think you meant forgotten for BUR-LAS, too. Please adds these list for me. Thanks! :)
caphis
Feb 12, 08, 10:30 pm
Also, I think you meant forgotten for BUR-LAS, too. Please adds these list for me. Thanks! :)
Sorry :)
BUR-LAS - flight 270 - departs 5:05 pm, arrives 6:15 pm
LAS-BUR - flight 271 - departs 6:55 pm, arrives 8:00 pm
Sorry :)
BUR-LAS - flight 270 - departs 5:05 pm, arrives 6:15 pm
LAS-BUR - flight 271 - departs 6:55 pm, arrives 8:00 pm
prismwiz
Feb 12, 08, 10:33 pm
So B6 adds SEA-LGB, which has the lowest airfares of any AS LA Area station to SEA 2X daily. They forget BUR which has higher yields. B6 adds SEA-SAN seasonal, 1X daily on a route that has an even higher yield for AS than the LA-area routes (excluding SNA). If they want to compete on SEA-SAN they should run it at least 3X if not 5X (as seen in my plans for SEA focus city)
B6 adds LAX flights, anyone else want to bet that this is to ruin yields for VX?
B6 adds SEA-LGB (bad idea) at 2X daily, bad SEA departing times for biz travellers. At minimum there should be 3X daily flights, 0600/1200/1800 or a similar variation.
B6 adds LGB-AUS (good) which competes against WN LAX-AUS (bad)
B6 adds LGB-SJC against WN's multiple SNA/LAX/BUR/ONT flights (bad)
B6 adds BUR-IAD (good), B6 doesn't add SAN/BUR-FLL (bad)
I am happy with these flights as they add some SEA prescence, but this seems like a knee-jerk reaction to VX. Excluding LGB-SJC/AUS, BUR-LAS. B6 should have started up a West Coast focus long ago (before VX).
B6 adds LAX flights, anyone else want to bet that this is to ruin yields for VX?
B6 adds SEA-LGB (bad idea) at 2X daily, bad SEA departing times for biz travellers. At minimum there should be 3X daily flights, 0600/1200/1800 or a similar variation.
B6 adds LGB-AUS (good) which competes against WN LAX-AUS (bad)
B6 adds LGB-SJC against WN's multiple SNA/LAX/BUR/ONT flights (bad)
B6 adds BUR-IAD (good), B6 doesn't add SAN/BUR-FLL (bad)
I am happy with these flights as they add some SEA prescence, but this seems like a knee-jerk reaction to VX. Excluding LGB-SJC/AUS, BUR-LAS. B6 should have started up a West Coast focus long ago (before VX).
caphis
Feb 12, 08, 10:46 pm
Has anybody got any inside information as to which terminal we will be using at LAX?
Indeed-- the Press Release (http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1107420&highlight=) has that juicy bit of info. ;-)
. The airline will fly three-times daily to New York/JFK and once-daily to Boston from LAX Terminal 6.
Indeed-- the Press Release (http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1107420&highlight=) has that juicy bit of info. ;-)
. The airline will fly three-times daily to New York/JFK and once-daily to Boston from LAX Terminal 6.
micfly
Feb 12, 08, 10:47 pm
Would give my right arm for B6 FLL-SEA; travel here monthly via US.
aaron1262
Feb 12, 08, 11:03 pm
Would give my right arm for B6 FLL-SEA; travel here monthly via US.
i second that one since the only flights to Florida is on AS 1X daily to MIA also MCO
i second that one since the only flights to Florida is on AS 1X daily to MIA also MCO
j3823x
Feb 12, 08, 11:45 pm
Having a chance to look at this a little further myself, these routes seem a bit odd.
LAX-JFK/BOS, expanding transcons to other airports in Socal similar to OAK/SJC/SFO/SMF in Norcal, okay, I can buy it.
LGB-AUS/SJC/SEA, LGB is a Socal focus city, okay on that too.
BUR-LAS/WAS, not so sure on these; that much direct traffic? especially BUR-WAS?
SAN-SLC/SEA, not so sure on these either since none of these are focus cities for B6.
Seems like they're basically excluding connecting traffic through SAN and BUR; a throwback to the early B6 years when B6 only cared about direct traffic.
Anyone else see BUR and SAN as odd expansion points? More specifically, today's announcement seems like more of a scatter approach to expanding out west.
LAX-JFK/BOS, expanding transcons to other airports in Socal similar to OAK/SJC/SFO/SMF in Norcal, okay, I can buy it.
LGB-AUS/SJC/SEA, LGB is a Socal focus city, okay on that too.
BUR-LAS/WAS, not so sure on these; that much direct traffic? especially BUR-WAS?
SAN-SLC/SEA, not so sure on these either since none of these are focus cities for B6.
Seems like they're basically excluding connecting traffic through SAN and BUR; a throwback to the early B6 years when B6 only cared about direct traffic.
Anyone else see BUR and SAN as odd expansion points? More specifically, today's announcement seems like more of a scatter approach to expanding out west.
bernardd
Feb 13, 08, 4:13 am
B6 adds LGB-AUS (good) which competes against WN LAX-AUS (bad)
First, I'm obviously pleased that B6 is finally flying somewhere from AUS that's not in the North East, though LGB is far from my first choice.
The choice of schedule:
LGB-AUS - flight 1416 - departs 10:15 am, arrives 3:15 pm (E190)
AUS-LGB - flight 1417 - departs 6:00 pm, arrives 7:05 pm (E190)
is OK westbound, but as always seems to be the case, kills the day eastbound, so my assumption is, as JetBlueFA suggested, they had to cycle the E190's through the system and AUS is about the only place that is in range in the mid-West which already has E190 service to the East coast. It's not a lot of capacity but it will be interesting to see how well it works.
The competition to Southern California isn't as bad as you think - WN has just 1xAUS-LAX + 1xAUS-SAN non-stop a day. AA is a bit tougher in terms of schedule (3xAUS-LAX + 1xAUS-SNA). (Note: it's not a typo - one is SAN, the other SNA). CO, US, UA etc require a connection, so B6 ought to be able to get enough of a load to make it worthwhile.
First, I'm obviously pleased that B6 is finally flying somewhere from AUS that's not in the North East, though LGB is far from my first choice.
The choice of schedule:
LGB-AUS - flight 1416 - departs 10:15 am, arrives 3:15 pm (E190)
AUS-LGB - flight 1417 - departs 6:00 pm, arrives 7:05 pm (E190)
is OK westbound, but as always seems to be the case, kills the day eastbound, so my assumption is, as JetBlueFA suggested, they had to cycle the E190's through the system and AUS is about the only place that is in range in the mid-West which already has E190 service to the East coast. It's not a lot of capacity but it will be interesting to see how well it works.
The competition to Southern California isn't as bad as you think - WN has just 1xAUS-LAX + 1xAUS-SAN non-stop a day. AA is a bit tougher in terms of schedule (3xAUS-LAX + 1xAUS-SNA). (Note: it's not a typo - one is SAN, the other SNA). CO, US, UA etc require a connection, so B6 ought to be able to get enough of a load to make it worthwhile.
prismwiz
Feb 13, 08, 8:49 am
Would give my right arm for B6 FLL-SEA; travel here monthly via US.
WN flys direct SEA-BNA-FLL, no need to connect in BNA. That might be better than connecting in PHL or CLT.
Maybe LGB-AUS isn't so bad, however I would prefer SJC-AUS or SEA-AUS.
WN flys direct SEA-BNA-FLL, no need to connect in BNA. That might be better than connecting in PHL or CLT.
Maybe LGB-AUS isn't so bad, however I would prefer SJC-AUS or SEA-AUS.
nsx
Feb 13, 08, 9:32 am
Wow, Terminal 6 at LAX and I have a Lifetime membership in the Presidents Club (across from Gate 62)! Now I can start dreaming about LAX-OAK service...
aaron1262
Feb 13, 08, 12:01 pm
I still don't think that B6 will not have enough traffic here in SEA unless they start advertising their presence and extensively promoting the new routes here on TV or something. Similar to Southwest...new route to DEN...has been on TV constantly for the past month or two..
People here generally don't know too much about B6 as it only has 2 flights per day to BOS/JFK...unless you travel a lot on B6 on SEA-JFk or SEA-BOS, people will not know that they will have the new routes to SAN, LGB unless they start advertising like crazy.
On that note...i don't think that their new routes will have a big influence in terms of competition against AS as it's only 1X daily SEASONAL flight to SAN and 2X to LGB.
People here generally don't know too much about B6 as it only has 2 flights per day to BOS/JFK...unless you travel a lot on B6 on SEA-JFk or SEA-BOS, people will not know that they will have the new routes to SAN, LGB unless they start advertising like crazy.
On that note...i don't think that their new routes will have a big influence in terms of competition against AS as it's only 1X daily SEASONAL flight to SAN and 2X to LGB.
DanJ
Feb 13, 08, 12:42 pm
LGB-SJC - flight 220 - departs 7:00 am, arrives 8:15 pm (A320)
Can't you drive there in half the time? LOL Or is that a JFK connection? :D
Can't you drive there in half the time? LOL Or is that a JFK connection? :D
Seat13c
Feb 13, 08, 1:20 pm
Can't you drive there in half the time? LOL Or is that a JFK connection? :D
As per mapquest's directions (http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?do=nw&go=1&r=f&aoh=&aot=&aof=&1a=&1c=Long%20Beach&1s=CA&1z=&1y=US&1l=PCxK%2f2htUSJRuo7fdG5I3A%3d%3d&1g=0kvDDZjFGNDuLI6qgCpQ%2bQ%3d%3d&1pl=&1v=CITY&1ffi=&1n=Los%20Angeles%20County&1qn=LGB%20airport&2a=&2c=San%20Jose&2s=CA&2z=&2y=US&2l=QrcEO%2fbAbJTOcCrpJYpvhQ%3d%3d&2g=ypRpdEupDVqxOg%2bOEFad6A%3d%3d&2pn=SJC&2pl=&2v=CITY&2ffi=&2n=Santa%20Clara%20County&2qn=SJC&2qc=&q=LGB%20airport&1pn=LGB%20airport&1sb=Long%20Beach%20Airport%20%28LGB%29%7c4100%20E% 20Donald%20Douglas%20Dr%7cLong%20Beach%7cCA%7c9080 8%7c33818771%7c%2d118142578%7c562%2d570%2d2600%7cU S&1qc=Airports), it will take you about 5 hours and 40 minutes to drive the 367 miles between the two airports.
As per mapquest's directions (http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?do=nw&go=1&r=f&aoh=&aot=&aof=&1a=&1c=Long%20Beach&1s=CA&1z=&1y=US&1l=PCxK%2f2htUSJRuo7fdG5I3A%3d%3d&1g=0kvDDZjFGNDuLI6qgCpQ%2bQ%3d%3d&1pl=&1v=CITY&1ffi=&1n=Los%20Angeles%20County&1qn=LGB%20airport&2a=&2c=San%20Jose&2s=CA&2z=&2y=US&2l=QrcEO%2fbAbJTOcCrpJYpvhQ%3d%3d&2g=ypRpdEupDVqxOg%2bOEFad6A%3d%3d&2pn=SJC&2pl=&2v=CITY&2ffi=&2n=Santa%20Clara%20County&2qn=SJC&2qc=&q=LGB%20airport&1pn=LGB%20airport&1sb=Long%20Beach%20Airport%20%28LGB%29%7c4100%20E% 20Donald%20Douglas%20Dr%7cLong%20Beach%7cCA%7c9080 8%7c33818771%7c%2d118142578%7c562%2d570%2d2600%7cU S&1qc=Airports), it will take you about 5 hours and 40 minutes to drive the 367 miles between the two airports.
caphis
Feb 13, 08, 1:24 pm
Can't you drive there in half the time? LOL Or is that a JFK connection? :D
I admit that I don't know much about getting around SoCal, but Google Maps puts it at 367 miles, for a 5 hour 44 min drive.
By comparison, RIC-JFK is 362 miles, IAD-JFK is 263 miles, BUF-JFK is 412 miles, SYR-JFK is 277 miles, PIT-JFK is 416 miles, and BOS-JFK is 218 miles, etc. etc.
So, I don't know about how much traffic from LGB-SJC will be local, but distance-wise, it's on par with other short-haul flights.
I admit that I don't know much about getting around SoCal, but Google Maps puts it at 367 miles, for a 5 hour 44 min drive.
By comparison, RIC-JFK is 362 miles, IAD-JFK is 263 miles, BUF-JFK is 412 miles, SYR-JFK is 277 miles, PIT-JFK is 416 miles, and BOS-JFK is 218 miles, etc. etc.
So, I don't know about how much traffic from LGB-SJC will be local, but distance-wise, it's on par with other short-haul flights.
Seat13c
Feb 13, 08, 1:28 pm
Yes, it's seasonal. If B6 will be extended for all-year round long for SEA-SAN. If B6 will done extremely very well for SEA-SAN. I'm sure if they will have another announcement coming soon in summer 2008.
Keep in mind, this is how RIC/CLT/RDU-FLL was announced. All three were suppose to be seasonal routes and just recently got upgraded to year round.
Keep in mind, this is how RIC/CLT/RDU-FLL was announced. All three were suppose to be seasonal routes and just recently got upgraded to year round.
N830MH
Feb 13, 08, 4:00 pm
Sorry :)
BUR-LAS - flight 270 - departs 5:05 pm, arrives 6:15 pm
LAS-BUR - flight 271 - departs 6:55 pm, arrives 8:00 pm
Thanks! I just really need those flight schedules from BUR-LAS. Hopefully if B6 will done extremely very well for BUR-LAS has been reinstated. As you know what exactly I certainly remember few years ago but, B6 has been discontinuation from BUR-LAS/MCO in 2006. It was short time after B6 has been inauguration from BUR-LAS. If BUR-LAS need to be very successfully routes.
BUR-LAS - flight 270 - departs 5:05 pm, arrives 6:15 pm
LAS-BUR - flight 271 - departs 6:55 pm, arrives 8:00 pm
Thanks! I just really need those flight schedules from BUR-LAS. Hopefully if B6 will done extremely very well for BUR-LAS has been reinstated. As you know what exactly I certainly remember few years ago but, B6 has been discontinuation from BUR-LAS/MCO in 2006. It was short time after B6 has been inauguration from BUR-LAS. If BUR-LAS need to be very successfully routes.
N830MH
Feb 13, 08, 4:02 pm
Keep in mind, this is how RIC/CLT/RDU-FLL was announced. All three were suppose to be seasonal routes and just recently got upgraded to year round.
Yes, of course they do. I knew that means from last month has last previously announced for RDU/CLT/RIC-FLL gone to be all year-round.
Yes, of course they do. I knew that means from last month has last previously announced for RDU/CLT/RIC-FLL gone to be all year-round.
N830MH
Feb 13, 08, 4:07 pm
i second that one since the only flights to Florida is on AS 1X daily to MIA also MCO
Yes, that's correct and also, AS has flies from SEA-MCO/MIA, too. Don't forget AS has already inauguration from PDX-MCO, too. Surely hopefully if AS will done extremely very well. If B6 will ever gets new nonstop from SEA-FLL sometimes in the future. Don't let hold your breath if I can hear more announcement is coming soon.
Yes, that's correct and also, AS has flies from SEA-MCO/MIA, too. Don't forget AS has already inauguration from PDX-MCO, too. Surely hopefully if AS will done extremely very well. If B6 will ever gets new nonstop from SEA-FLL sometimes in the future. Don't let hold your breath if I can hear more announcement is coming soon.
prismwiz
Feb 13, 08, 4:13 pm
I still don't think that B6 will not have enough traffic here in SEA unless they start advertising their presence and extensively promoting the new routes here on TV or something. Similar to Southwest...new route to DEN...has been on TV constantly for the past month or two..
People here generally don't know too much about B6 as it only has 2 flights per day to BOS/JFK...unless you travel a lot on B6 on SEA-JFk or SEA-BOS, people will not know that they will have the new routes to SAN, LGB unless they start advertising like crazy.
On that note...i don't think that their new routes will have a big influence in terms of competition against AS as it's only 1X daily SEASONAL flight to SAN and 2X to LGB.
B6 should advertise more in SEA, but they won't. Only 3 flights are being added, if anything they will just put a small ad in the Seattle Times:
Dear SEA:
We added routes to LGB and SAN ($89 OW) in addition to our JFK and BOS routes ($159 OW). We have great service and 36 inch pitch. For more info see B6.com
At peak B6 will have 6 daily flights from SEA (BOS/SAN X1JFK/LGB X2). Not enough to "waste" on ads inless B6 has something big planned for SEA.
People here generally don't know too much about B6 as it only has 2 flights per day to BOS/JFK...unless you travel a lot on B6 on SEA-JFk or SEA-BOS, people will not know that they will have the new routes to SAN, LGB unless they start advertising like crazy.
On that note...i don't think that their new routes will have a big influence in terms of competition against AS as it's only 1X daily SEASONAL flight to SAN and 2X to LGB.
B6 should advertise more in SEA, but they won't. Only 3 flights are being added, if anything they will just put a small ad in the Seattle Times:
Dear SEA:
We added routes to LGB and SAN ($89 OW) in addition to our JFK and BOS routes ($159 OW). We have great service and 36 inch pitch. For more info see B6.com
At peak B6 will have 6 daily flights from SEA (BOS/SAN X1JFK/LGB X2). Not enough to "waste" on ads inless B6 has something big planned for SEA.
Top Tier
Feb 13, 08, 11:07 pm
LGB-SJC - flight 220 - departs 7:00 am, arrives 8:15 pm (A320)
Can't you drive there in half the time? LOL Or is that a JFK connection? :D
I admit that I don't know much about getting around SoCal, but Google Maps puts it at 367 miles, for a 5 hour 44 min drive.
By comparison, RIC-JFK is 362 miles, IAD-JFK is 263 miles, BUF-JFK is 412 miles, SYR-JFK is 277 miles, PIT-JFK is 416 miles, and BOS-JFK is 218 miles, etc. etc.
So, I don't know about how much traffic from LGB-SJC will be local, but distance-wise, it's on par with other short-haul flights.
I think DanJ was referring to the probable typo that lists B6 Flt #220 as a 13hr15min flight from LGB-SJC
Can't you drive there in half the time? LOL Or is that a JFK connection? :D
I admit that I don't know much about getting around SoCal, but Google Maps puts it at 367 miles, for a 5 hour 44 min drive.
By comparison, RIC-JFK is 362 miles, IAD-JFK is 263 miles, BUF-JFK is 412 miles, SYR-JFK is 277 miles, PIT-JFK is 416 miles, and BOS-JFK is 218 miles, etc. etc.
So, I don't know about how much traffic from LGB-SJC will be local, but distance-wise, it's on par with other short-haul flights.
I think DanJ was referring to the probable typo that lists B6 Flt #220 as a 13hr15min flight from LGB-SJC
caphis
Feb 13, 08, 11:49 pm
I think DanJ was referring to the probable typo that lists B6 Flt #220 as a 13hr15min flight from LGB-SJC
My bad :)
My bad :)
sbm12
Feb 14, 08, 4:55 am
I just got an email with the introductory fares:
$39 between Long Beach and San Jose between Burbank and Las Vegas(Starts May 21)
$89 between Long Beach and Seattle between San Diego and Seattle (Starts May 21)
$99 between Long Beach and Austin(Starts May 1)=20
$119 between Burbank and Washington, D.C. (Starts May 21)
$129 between Los Angeles and New York City (Starts May 21)
$159 between Los Angeles and Boston (Starts May 21)
Not terrible for the short stuff, but not as aggressive as VX was when they launched. I'm happy that B6 isn't offering the flights so cheap as to guarantee they'll lose money, but these fares aren't going to inspire people to necessarily run out and buy tickets.
S.
$39 between Long Beach and San Jose between Burbank and Las Vegas(Starts May 21)
$89 between Long Beach and Seattle between San Diego and Seattle (Starts May 21)
$99 between Long Beach and Austin(Starts May 1)=20
$119 between Burbank and Washington, D.C. (Starts May 21)
$129 between Los Angeles and New York City (Starts May 21)
$159 between Los Angeles and Boston (Starts May 21)
Not terrible for the short stuff, but not as aggressive as VX was when they launched. I'm happy that B6 isn't offering the flights so cheap as to guarantee they'll lose money, but these fares aren't going to inspire people to necessarily run out and buy tickets.
S.
Seat13c
Feb 14, 08, 6:47 am
I think DanJ was referring to the probable typo that lists B6 Flt #220 as a 13hr15min flight from LGB-SJC
Wow, I didn't catch that either. :eek:
Wow, I didn't catch that either. :eek:
prismwiz
Feb 14, 08, 8:43 am
I just got an email with the introductory fares:
$39 between Long Beach and San Jose between Burbank and Las Vegas(Starts May 21)
$89 between Long Beach and Seattle between San Diego and Seattle (Starts May 21)
$99 between Long Beach and Austin(Starts May 1)=20
$119 between Burbank and Washington, D.C. (Starts May 21)
$129 between Los Angeles and New York City (Starts May 21)
$159 between Los Angeles and Boston (Starts May 21)
Not terrible for the short stuff, but not as aggressive as VX was when they launched. I'm happy that B6 isn't offering the flights so cheap as to guarantee they'll lose money, but these fares aren't going to inspire people to necessarily run out and buy tickets.
S.
LGB-SEA is $10 less than the VX intro fare on LAX-SEA.
$39 between Long Beach and San Jose between Burbank and Las Vegas(Starts May 21)
$89 between Long Beach and Seattle between San Diego and Seattle (Starts May 21)
$99 between Long Beach and Austin(Starts May 1)=20
$119 between Burbank and Washington, D.C. (Starts May 21)
$129 between Los Angeles and New York City (Starts May 21)
$159 between Los Angeles and Boston (Starts May 21)
Not terrible for the short stuff, but not as aggressive as VX was when they launched. I'm happy that B6 isn't offering the flights so cheap as to guarantee they'll lose money, but these fares aren't going to inspire people to necessarily run out and buy tickets.
S.
LGB-SEA is $10 less than the VX intro fare on LAX-SEA.
DanJ
Feb 14, 08, 9:55 am
I think DanJ was referring to the probable typo that lists B6 Flt #220 as a 13hr15min flight from LGB-SJC
Thanks, I guess I should have bolded the am/pm thing too LOL.
Thanks, I guess I should have bolded the am/pm thing too LOL.
LoneStarMike
Feb 18, 08, 7:18 am
JFK/BOS-AUS-LGB is how the 190s will be routed to get out west (sure you already knew that)
Funny you should mention that JetBlueFA because the initial schedules don't make it look that way, unless I'm missing something. [edited to add: I missed something :) ]
As we all know, AUS is an all E-190 station. Here are the other routes & departure times in and out of AUS.
AUS-JFK
Flight 1060 Dep AUS 07:00 - Arr JFK 11:40
Flight 1062 Dep AUS 11:30 - Arr JFK 16:18
Flight 1068 Dep AUS 17:00 - Arr JFK 22:00
JFK-AUS
Flight 1061 Dep JFK 09:05 - Arr AUS 12:14
Flight 1065 Dep JFK 13:20 - Arr AUS 16:23
Flight 1069 Dep JFK 20:40 - Arr AUS 23:59
AUS-BOS
Flight 1264 Dep AUS 12:55 - Arr BOS 18:00
BOS-AUS
Flight 1263 Dep BOS 07:35 - Arr AUS 10:55
AUS-LGB
Flight 1417 Dep AUS 18:00 - Arr LGB 19:05
LGB-AUS
Flight 1416 Dep LGB 10:15 - Arr AUS 17:15 (edited to add: actually this flight arrives at 15:15. I need glasses)
So it looks like AUS has one originator - Flight 1060 to JFK that departs AUS at 07:00
Next inbound (1263 from BOS) arrives at 10:55 & does a 35-minute turn and departs as 1062 back to JFK at 11:30.
Next inbound (1061 from JFK) arrives at 12:14 & does a 36 minute turn and departs as 1264 back to BOS at 12:55.
Next inbound (1065 from JFK) arrives at 16:23 & does a 37 minute turn and departs as 1068 back to JFK at 17:00
Next inbound (1416 from LGB) arrives at 17:15 & does a 45 minute turn and departs as 1416 back to LGB at 18:00.
Last inbound (1069 from JFK) arrives at 23:59 - remains overnight and is the aircraft for the next day's 07:00 departure back to JFK.
Not only that, but it appears (for now) that the E-190 that does LGB-AUS-LGB is the only flight all day that that particular aircraft does. I couldn't find an out & back roundtrip from LGB before 10:15 or after 19:05 that used an E-190.
[edited because of correction noted above: So now, I'm more confused than ever. Does the 15:15 arrival from LGB stay on the ground 2:45 and then go back to LGB? Or does it sit on the ground 1:45 and continue on to JFK at 17:00? If it continues on to JFK at 17:00, then that would mean that the 16:23 arrival from JFK would sit on the ground in AUS 1:37 before contining on to LGB at 18:00.
I can't imagine B6 having an aircraft sit on the ground that long.
In addition, there's some "abnormalities" in the B6 schedules out of SAN being discussed over at airliners.net in this thread. (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3849963/) Some schedules show departing flights with no inbound flights to provide the necessary a/c (and visa versa.)
All this makes me think there might be some additional new flights in the pipeline that just haven't been announced yet.
Things that make you go hmmmmm.......
(Note - the AUS flight times are based on the Tuesday June 3, 2008 schedules from the OAG on Austin Bergstrom International Airport's website)
http://timetables.oag.com/aus/
Mike
Funny you should mention that JetBlueFA because the initial schedules don't make it look that way, unless I'm missing something. [edited to add: I missed something :) ]
As we all know, AUS is an all E-190 station. Here are the other routes & departure times in and out of AUS.
AUS-JFK
Flight 1060 Dep AUS 07:00 - Arr JFK 11:40
Flight 1062 Dep AUS 11:30 - Arr JFK 16:18
Flight 1068 Dep AUS 17:00 - Arr JFK 22:00
JFK-AUS
Flight 1061 Dep JFK 09:05 - Arr AUS 12:14
Flight 1065 Dep JFK 13:20 - Arr AUS 16:23
Flight 1069 Dep JFK 20:40 - Arr AUS 23:59
AUS-BOS
Flight 1264 Dep AUS 12:55 - Arr BOS 18:00
BOS-AUS
Flight 1263 Dep BOS 07:35 - Arr AUS 10:55
AUS-LGB
Flight 1417 Dep AUS 18:00 - Arr LGB 19:05
LGB-AUS
Flight 1416 Dep LGB 10:15 - Arr AUS 17:15 (edited to add: actually this flight arrives at 15:15. I need glasses)
So it looks like AUS has one originator - Flight 1060 to JFK that departs AUS at 07:00
Next inbound (1263 from BOS) arrives at 10:55 & does a 35-minute turn and departs as 1062 back to JFK at 11:30.
Next inbound (1061 from JFK) arrives at 12:14 & does a 36 minute turn and departs as 1264 back to BOS at 12:55.
Next inbound (1065 from JFK) arrives at 16:23 & does a 37 minute turn and departs as 1068 back to JFK at 17:00
Next inbound (1416 from LGB) arrives at 17:15 & does a 45 minute turn and departs as 1416 back to LGB at 18:00.
Last inbound (1069 from JFK) arrives at 23:59 - remains overnight and is the aircraft for the next day's 07:00 departure back to JFK.
Not only that, but it appears (for now) that the E-190 that does LGB-AUS-LGB is the only flight all day that that particular aircraft does. I couldn't find an out & back roundtrip from LGB before 10:15 or after 19:05 that used an E-190.
[edited because of correction noted above: So now, I'm more confused than ever. Does the 15:15 arrival from LGB stay on the ground 2:45 and then go back to LGB? Or does it sit on the ground 1:45 and continue on to JFK at 17:00? If it continues on to JFK at 17:00, then that would mean that the 16:23 arrival from JFK would sit on the ground in AUS 1:37 before contining on to LGB at 18:00.
I can't imagine B6 having an aircraft sit on the ground that long.
In addition, there's some "abnormalities" in the B6 schedules out of SAN being discussed over at airliners.net in this thread. (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3849963/) Some schedules show departing flights with no inbound flights to provide the necessary a/c (and visa versa.)
All this makes me think there might be some additional new flights in the pipeline that just haven't been announced yet.
Things that make you go hmmmmm.......
(Note - the AUS flight times are based on the Tuesday June 3, 2008 schedules from the OAG on Austin Bergstrom International Airport's website)
http://timetables.oag.com/aus/
Mike
dinosims
Feb 18, 08, 4:13 pm
I'd assume they'd have to reposition at least an E190 or 2 over to LGB to make the SEA, SJC and AUS runs.
With the schedule you have above, it actually does make sense though. If there's 2 planes on the ground at AUS at once (overlapping from 16:23 to 17:00), there can be a conscious choice as to which plane to send back to JFK, based on maintenance schedules.
With the schedule you have above, it actually does make sense though. If there's 2 planes on the ground at AUS at once (overlapping from 16:23 to 17:00), there can be a conscious choice as to which plane to send back to JFK, based on maintenance schedules.
dinosims
Feb 18, 08, 4:54 pm
Also, what about the ORD-LGB flights? The E190 would have the legs to make that - do the times work out for some of your mysterious turns?
j3823x
Feb 18, 08, 5:13 pm
I can't imagine B6 having an aircraft sit on the ground that long.
Maybe crew scheduling is impacting aircraft utilization? Meaning a new crew isn't available until 1:37 after the arrival of whichever flight?
Also, with so many flights in/out AUs, maybe there is always one e190 there? Meaning they're not using the last plane that came in, but the plane from two flights ago? Gives the cushion of an extra plane on hand and ready to go.
Maybe crew scheduling is impacting aircraft utilization? Meaning a new crew isn't available until 1:37 after the arrival of whichever flight?
Also, with so many flights in/out AUs, maybe there is always one e190 there? Meaning they're not using the last plane that came in, but the plane from two flights ago? Gives the cushion of an extra plane on hand and ready to go.
LoneStarMike
Feb 18, 08, 11:37 pm
If there's 2 planes on the ground at AUS at once (overlapping from 16:23 to 17:00), there can be a conscious choice as to which plane to send back to JFK, based on maintenance schedules.
Thanks - that makes sense.
Also, what about the ORD-LGB flights? The E190 would have the legs to make that - do the times work out for some of your mysterious turns?
Not really - plus I don't think B6 uses an E-190 on the LGB-ORD trips.
Maybe crew scheduling is impacting aircraft utilization? Meaning a new crew isn't available until 1:37 after the arrival of whichever flight?
I guess that could be possible.
Also, with so many flights in/out AUs, maybe there is always one e190 there? Meaning they're not using the last plane that came in, but the plane from two flights ago? Gives the cushion of an extra plane on hand and ready to go.
With the new LGB-AUS flight, B6 will only have 5 departures per day out of AUS so it's really not that many flights in/out of AUS. Then again compared to some of B6's smaller stations with 1 red-eye roundtrip, I guess 5 roundtrips would seem like a lot.
With regards to planes being on the ground for long periods of time, there's a better example out of SAN. They have 8 rountrips daily. The five from the east coast appear to originate on the east coast - fly to SAN - spend anywhere from 50-55 minutes on the ground and then fly back to the east coast.
The two SAN-SLC flights both originate in SLC - fly to SAN spend 40 minutes on the ground and then fly back to SLC.
The only other roundtrip is SAN-SEA. That plane appears to leave SAN at 15:00, arrives SEA 17:45, does a 55 minute turn, leaves SEA at 18:40 and arrives back in SAN at 21:25 where it appears to remain overnight until 15:00 the following afternoon when it makes the same trip.
Two flights per day and then 17 hours 35 minutes on the ground? I still think we'll see some additional service announcements. I guess we'll find out soon enough. (or not :) )
Thanks for the theories and suggestions, though.
Mike
Thanks - that makes sense.
Also, what about the ORD-LGB flights? The E190 would have the legs to make that - do the times work out for some of your mysterious turns?
Not really - plus I don't think B6 uses an E-190 on the LGB-ORD trips.
Maybe crew scheduling is impacting aircraft utilization? Meaning a new crew isn't available until 1:37 after the arrival of whichever flight?
I guess that could be possible.
Also, with so many flights in/out AUs, maybe there is always one e190 there? Meaning they're not using the last plane that came in, but the plane from two flights ago? Gives the cushion of an extra plane on hand and ready to go.
With the new LGB-AUS flight, B6 will only have 5 departures per day out of AUS so it's really not that many flights in/out of AUS. Then again compared to some of B6's smaller stations with 1 red-eye roundtrip, I guess 5 roundtrips would seem like a lot.
With regards to planes being on the ground for long periods of time, there's a better example out of SAN. They have 8 rountrips daily. The five from the east coast appear to originate on the east coast - fly to SAN - spend anywhere from 50-55 minutes on the ground and then fly back to the east coast.
The two SAN-SLC flights both originate in SLC - fly to SAN spend 40 minutes on the ground and then fly back to SLC.
The only other roundtrip is SAN-SEA. That plane appears to leave SAN at 15:00, arrives SEA 17:45, does a 55 minute turn, leaves SEA at 18:40 and arrives back in SAN at 21:25 where it appears to remain overnight until 15:00 the following afternoon when it makes the same trip.
Two flights per day and then 17 hours 35 minutes on the ground? I still think we'll see some additional service announcements. I guess we'll find out soon enough. (or not :) )
Thanks for the theories and suggestions, though.
Mike
sbm12
Feb 20, 08, 7:01 am
All this makes me think there might be some additional new flights in the pipeline that just haven't been announced yet.
Indeed (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=792532)....
Looks like FLL, MCO, and SFO are coming. Lots of flexibility and ability to rotate the birds through the system with this setup.
Indeed (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=792532)....
Looks like FLL, MCO, and SFO are coming. Lots of flexibility and ability to rotate the birds through the system with this setup.
LoneStarMike
Feb 20, 08, 8:02 am
Yes - it's great for AUS, but it it still doesn't explain 2 A-320's long ground times in SAN and SEA, so I'll bet there's more to come for those cities, as well.
Mike
Mike
MrPresident1776
Feb 20, 08, 11:32 pm
jetBlue needs to get some more gates at LAX and expand to at least 30-50 Daily flights. Transcons are currently being be axed by many carriers but jetBlue's low costs can make them work better than everyone else.
Current
3D-JFK-320
1D-BOS-320
New
6D-JFK-320
3D-BOS-320
2D-IAD-320
1D-SWF-320
1D-BUF-320
1D-RDU-320
1D-PIT-320
3D-PDX-320
2D-MCO-320
1D-CLT-320 [Yes, it's a US hub but jetBlue's in the best position to make they bleed a little]
1D-HPN-320 [If there's room there, with 240 passengers per hour rule etc]
4D-SLC-320
5D-LAS-320 [Big market and could absorb B6 flights with ease]
31D using 3 gates [Need to get two more]
These flights are listed with the rough order they should be implemented. As jetBlue develops a present at LAX and gets some market mass, people will be more likely to fly them.
Current
3D-JFK-320
1D-BOS-320
New
6D-JFK-320
3D-BOS-320
2D-IAD-320
1D-SWF-320
1D-BUF-320
1D-RDU-320
1D-PIT-320
3D-PDX-320
2D-MCO-320
1D-CLT-320 [Yes, it's a US hub but jetBlue's in the best position to make they bleed a little]
1D-HPN-320 [If there's room there, with 240 passengers per hour rule etc]
4D-SLC-320
5D-LAS-320 [Big market and could absorb B6 flights with ease]
31D using 3 gates [Need to get two more]
These flights are listed with the rough order they should be implemented. As jetBlue develops a present at LAX and gets some market mass, people will be more likely to fly them.
MrPresident1776
Feb 20, 08, 11:40 pm
jetBlue should really give Southwest a run for their money and add BUR-SFO with 10 Daily on A320's.
Currently, Southwest has 15D from OAK so SFO should be able to support it.
They could also add SFO-ONT with 5D or 6D on A320's. They might not make money for a while but it would help establish the jetBlue brand in the world's sixth largest economy.
Also, BUR-BOS and BUR-EWR would work nicely well as no carrier serves those markets nonstop. BUR to SEA and PDX would go up against Alaska and if jetBlue could get some ORD slots, that market would work also.
Currently, Southwest has 15D from OAK so SFO should be able to support it.
They could also add SFO-ONT with 5D or 6D on A320's. They might not make money for a while but it would help establish the jetBlue brand in the world's sixth largest economy.
Also, BUR-BOS and BUR-EWR would work nicely well as no carrier serves those markets nonstop. BUR to SEA and PDX would go up against Alaska and if jetBlue could get some ORD slots, that market would work also.
sbm12
Feb 21, 08, 3:49 am
jetBlue needs to get some more gates at LAX and expand to at least 30-50 Daily flights. Transcons are currently being be axed by many carriers but jetBlue's low costs can make them work better than everyone else.
They may have slightly lower costs than other carriers, but B6 still will struggle with profits on transcon routes given the current pricing structures.
And I'm not sure that LAX is the lynchpin of any carrier's growth - certainly not B6's. Getting to the volumes you're talking about is a 5+ year target (at best), not a short-term effort.
They may have slightly lower costs than other carriers, but B6 still will struggle with profits on transcon routes given the current pricing structures.
And I'm not sure that LAX is the lynchpin of any carrier's growth - certainly not B6's. Getting to the volumes you're talking about is a 5+ year target (at best), not a short-term effort.
j3823x
Feb 21, 08, 5:08 pm
They could also add SFO-ONT with 5D or 6D on A320's. They might not make money for a while but it would help establish the jetBlue brand in the world's sixth largest economy.
What are you referring to as the "world's sixth largest economy" ?
Also, B6 currently needs routes where it makes money from Day 1, not running routes as a marketing expense.
What are you referring to as the "world's sixth largest economy" ?
Also, B6 currently needs routes where it makes money from Day 1, not running routes as a marketing expense.
MrPresident1776
Feb 21, 08, 5:45 pm
[QUOTE=j3823x;9291858]What are you referring to as the "world's sixth largest economy" ?
I was refering to California as the world's six largest economy but after a bit of Googling, the International Herald Tribune contradicts me. Apparently, its the 8th largest.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/12/business/NA-GEN-US-California-No.-8-Economy.php
I was refering to California as the world's six largest economy but after a bit of Googling, the International Herald Tribune contradicts me. Apparently, its the 8th largest.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/12/business/NA-GEN-US-California-No.-8-Economy.php
prismwiz
Feb 21, 08, 5:54 pm
I dissagree with most everthing MrPresident1776 has written in this thread.
LAX expansion can better be expanded in LGB and BUR to better serve the two niche markets that overlap LAX. Some people--like Marina del ray--will not use B6 from BUR or LGB but the LA area overlap is big enough. I figure a tandem schedule, instead of SLC-LAX 4X have SLC-BUR 2X and SLC-LGB 2X.
B6 should leave LAX for VX to suffer through (with the exception of some JFK/BOS/possible IAD flights)
As much as I agree with BUR expansion and would use BUR (family) I disagree with your routes and their frequencies. BUR-BOS works well, 1X daily redeye. BUR-EWR does not work well with the Big Bad Blue, Global Giant. I appluad any BUR-SEA/PDX flights. 3X BUR-SEA (1 plane from 0600-2400) and BUR-PDX 2X+PDX-SLC (1 plane 0600-2400). BUR-SFO would be a better route for VX and if B6 starts it WN and VX will start it with UA adding to SFO-BUR. Maybe 6X daily (1 plane flying back and forth) would be OK but WN would have a fit. SFO-ONT is a bad market to serve because of lower yield and less pax demand. Any LA-SF area flights would drive VX, WN, and UA to insanity. B6 should just stay out of it and look to other bases 650-950 miles up I5.
LAX expansion can better be expanded in LGB and BUR to better serve the two niche markets that overlap LAX. Some people--like Marina del ray--will not use B6 from BUR or LGB but the LA area overlap is big enough. I figure a tandem schedule, instead of SLC-LAX 4X have SLC-BUR 2X and SLC-LGB 2X.
B6 should leave LAX for VX to suffer through (with the exception of some JFK/BOS/possible IAD flights)
As much as I agree with BUR expansion and would use BUR (family) I disagree with your routes and their frequencies. BUR-BOS works well, 1X daily redeye. BUR-EWR does not work well with the Big Bad Blue, Global Giant. I appluad any BUR-SEA/PDX flights. 3X BUR-SEA (1 plane from 0600-2400) and BUR-PDX 2X+PDX-SLC (1 plane 0600-2400). BUR-SFO would be a better route for VX and if B6 starts it WN and VX will start it with UA adding to SFO-BUR. Maybe 6X daily (1 plane flying back and forth) would be OK but WN would have a fit. SFO-ONT is a bad market to serve because of lower yield and less pax demand. Any LA-SF area flights would drive VX, WN, and UA to insanity. B6 should just stay out of it and look to other bases 650-950 miles up I5.
j3823x
Feb 21, 08, 8:31 pm
[QUOTE=j3823x;9291858]What are you referring to as the "world's sixth largest economy" ?
I was refering to California as the world's six largest economy but after a bit of Googling, the International Herald Tribune contradicts me. Apparently, its the 8th largest.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/12/business/NA-GEN-US-California-No.-8-Economy.php
6th largest, 8th largest, whichever. But to help B6 make a presence in California overall, you choose SFO-ONT?
SW already has 12 OAK-ONT flights on this route. An additional 6 from B6 is a 50% increase in supply. Even if B6 could support such an increase on this route, its not an attention grabber for all of California. Its just not a high profile route. If supply increases that much, demand decreases which further decreases pricing.
Yes, California is big. But ramping up 6 SFO-ONT flights doesn't seem like a good use of B6's resources.
I was refering to California as the world's six largest economy but after a bit of Googling, the International Herald Tribune contradicts me. Apparently, its the 8th largest.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/12/business/NA-GEN-US-California-No.-8-Economy.php
6th largest, 8th largest, whichever. But to help B6 make a presence in California overall, you choose SFO-ONT?
SW already has 12 OAK-ONT flights on this route. An additional 6 from B6 is a 50% increase in supply. Even if B6 could support such an increase on this route, its not an attention grabber for all of California. Its just not a high profile route. If supply increases that much, demand decreases which further decreases pricing.
Yes, California is big. But ramping up 6 SFO-ONT flights doesn't seem like a good use of B6's resources.
MrPresident1776
Feb 21, 08, 11:40 pm
As you probably all know, Southwest is pretty big in California [roughly 700 Daily flights from or with CA]. In fact, 7 years ago, roughly 25% of their profits came from California. Intra CA is a profitable market when the dust settles as it has done before. In the 1980's, there was Western Airlines, Pacific Southwest, Air Cal and United were all battling it out for CA. Only UA survived and the intra CA
market was left to rot. Southwest moved in and has been the biggest ever since. Certainly California ought to be able to support both Southwest and jetBlue and to a lesser extent United.
market was left to rot. Southwest moved in and has been the biggest ever since. Certainly California ought to be able to support both Southwest and jetBlue and to a lesser extent United.
prismwiz
Feb 22, 08, 9:59 am
As you probably all know, Southwest is pretty big in California [roughly 700 Daily flights from or with CA]. In fact, 7 years ago, roughly 25% of their profits came from California. Intra CA is a profitable market when the dust settles as it has done before. In the 1980's, there was Western Airlines, Pacific Southwest, Air Cal and United were all battling it out for CA. Only UA survived and the intra CA
market was left to rot. Southwest moved in and has been the biggest ever since. Certainly California ought to be able to support both Southwest and jetBlue and to a lesser extent United.
Don't forget the token AA/AE precense in CA. There were 4 airlines then, now there is 1 predominant airline (WN) with SFO having UA. With WN in SFO there is enough competition in the duopoly. AA is added with a vestige from their former SJC focus and VX is readily trying to compete. B6 has shown reluctance to start markets at high frequency--see SLC, AUS, LGB build-ups. B6 should wait until the dust settles and VX is gone to try and expand. VX should look at two airports 130 miles apart North on I5 from CA to expand in.
market was left to rot. Southwest moved in and has been the biggest ever since. Certainly California ought to be able to support both Southwest and jetBlue and to a lesser extent United.
Don't forget the token AA/AE precense in CA. There were 4 airlines then, now there is 1 predominant airline (WN) with SFO having UA. With WN in SFO there is enough competition in the duopoly. AA is added with a vestige from their former SJC focus and VX is readily trying to compete. B6 has shown reluctance to start markets at high frequency--see SLC, AUS, LGB build-ups. B6 should wait until the dust settles and VX is gone to try and expand. VX should look at two airports 130 miles apart North on I5 from CA to expand in.
bernardd
Feb 22, 08, 10:24 am
Don't forget the token AA/AE precense in CA. There were 4 airlines then, now there is 1 predominant airline (WN) with SFO having UA. With WN in SFO there is enough competition in the duopoly. AA is added with a vestige from their former SJC focus and VX is readily trying to compete.
Some of what you see AA doing today in CA are remants of Reno - a sad end to a halfway sensible airline.
I think it's far less likely than you imagine that Virgin is going to disappear. So far Virgin has been able to get airlines to work and I would expect to seem them make a more determined effort at fixing or re-inventing VX before they'll be willing to quit. And watch out if they do get it right, because that brand is pretty strong.
Some of what you see AA doing today in CA are remants of Reno - a sad end to a halfway sensible airline.
I think it's far less likely than you imagine that Virgin is going to disappear. So far Virgin has been able to get airlines to work and I would expect to seem them make a more determined effort at fixing or re-inventing VX before they'll be willing to quit. And watch out if they do get it right, because that brand is pretty strong.
MrPresident1776
Feb 22, 08, 10:32 am
Don't forget the token AA/AE precense in CA. There were 4 airlines then, now there is 1 predominant airline (WN) with SFO having UA. With WN in SFO there is enough competition in the duopoly. AA is added with a vestige from their former SJC focus and VX is readily trying to compete. B6 has shown reluctance to start markets at high frequency--see SLC, AUS, LGB build-ups. B6 should wait until the dust settles and VX is gone to try and expand. VX should look at two airports 130 miles apart North on I5 from CA to expand in.
I agree that B6 should wait until the dust settles but AA/AE having a major California presence?! Come on, they have a decent LAX presence and are big in Orange County. And they serve 8 cities out of SFO. But for intra CA, they use American Eagle [worst airline ever!] except for SFO-LAX. AE vs B6 is a bit of a joke.
I agree that B6 should wait until the dust settles but AA/AE having a major California presence?! Come on, they have a decent LAX presence and are big in Orange County. And they serve 8 cities out of SFO. But for intra CA, they use American Eagle [worst airline ever!] except for SFO-LAX. AE vs B6 is a bit of a joke.
sbm12
Feb 22, 08, 12:18 pm
MrPresident1776, you've mentioned the dust settling twice. What do you mean by that? Just VX shutting down? That won't change the intra-California market very significantly - they just don't have that much volume (just 6x on one route).
The current merger-mania is not going to affect the intra-California market with any significant changes. UA will keep their existing approach, as will WN. DL/NW wouldn't grow out there unless they choose to reposition their services. The only way it changes is if AS comes into play, but even then a significant amount of their service is AA codeshare.
There is a significant demand for intra-California service, but any increase in capacity at this point will drive yields down, and that isn't good for anyone, including B6. They're looking for routes where they can hold the yields at a reasonable level, and I don't think any of the intra-California routes that you're talking about allow that.
The current merger-mania is not going to affect the intra-California market with any significant changes. UA will keep their existing approach, as will WN. DL/NW wouldn't grow out there unless they choose to reposition their services. The only way it changes is if AS comes into play, but even then a significant amount of their service is AA codeshare.
There is a significant demand for intra-California service, but any increase in capacity at this point will drive yields down, and that isn't good for anyone, including B6. They're looking for routes where they can hold the yields at a reasonable level, and I don't think any of the intra-California routes that you're talking about allow that.
prismwiz
Feb 22, 08, 7:20 pm
Some of what you see AA doing today in CA are remants of Reno - a sad end to a halfway sensible airline.
I think it's far less likely than you imagine that Virgin is going to disappear. So far Virgin has been able to get airlines to work and I would expect to seem them make a more determined effort at fixing or re-inventing VX before they'll be willing to quit. And watch out if they do get it right, because that brand is pretty strong.
The remaining vestige of SJC/RNO is exactly the reason I don't want AA (or CO/DL/NW/US/US/Anyone) to buy AS.
I have nothing against VX. I just feel that their biz plan is doomed to fail.
MrPresident1776, I never wrote that AA/AE has large prescense in CA, just a token (small) prescence. You misunderstood me.
sbm12, you are correct, B6 is looking for routes that they can make $ on that won't depress yields. They are looking to routes that are 500-1500 miles in length with the exception of LGB-SJC at 350 and LAX-JFK/BOS as Tcons. 500-1500 miles is the "sweet spot" for yields and aircraft utilization, B6 should look for routes in that range. Routes like connecting the dots Florida-NE, CA-SEA/PDX, SEA-ANC, SLC-WC, AUS-everywhere, and other similar stage lengths.
I think it's far less likely than you imagine that Virgin is going to disappear. So far Virgin has been able to get airlines to work and I would expect to seem them make a more determined effort at fixing or re-inventing VX before they'll be willing to quit. And watch out if they do get it right, because that brand is pretty strong.
The remaining vestige of SJC/RNO is exactly the reason I don't want AA (or CO/DL/NW/US/US/Anyone) to buy AS.
I have nothing against VX. I just feel that their biz plan is doomed to fail.
MrPresident1776, I never wrote that AA/AE has large prescense in CA, just a token (small) prescence. You misunderstood me.
sbm12, you are correct, B6 is looking for routes that they can make $ on that won't depress yields. They are looking to routes that are 500-1500 miles in length with the exception of LGB-SJC at 350 and LAX-JFK/BOS as Tcons. 500-1500 miles is the "sweet spot" for yields and aircraft utilization, B6 should look for routes in that range. Routes like connecting the dots Florida-NE, CA-SEA/PDX, SEA-ANC, SLC-WC, AUS-everywhere, and other similar stage lengths.
j3823x
Feb 22, 08, 8:21 pm
As you probably all know, Southwest is pretty big in California [roughly 700 Daily flights from or with CA]. In fact, 7 years ago, roughly 25% of their profits came from California. Intra CA is a profitable market when the dust settles as it has done before. In the 1980's, there was Western Airlines, Pacific Southwest, Air Cal and United were all battling it out for CA. Only UA survived and the intra CA
market was left to rot. Southwest moved in and has been the biggest ever since. Certainly California ought to be able to support both Southwest and jetBlue and to a lesser extent United.
I agree that SW was able to make a killing in CA because the "market was left to rot". But that is not the case now.
How will B6 make their success in CA when the market is well established? I don't think it will be done by B6 just showing up and running a bunch of intra-CA flights.
Furthermore, if B6 wants to make a name for itself in CA, its not going to be with SFO-ONT.
market was left to rot. Southwest moved in and has been the biggest ever since. Certainly California ought to be able to support both Southwest and jetBlue and to a lesser extent United.
I agree that SW was able to make a killing in CA because the "market was left to rot". But that is not the case now.
How will B6 make their success in CA when the market is well established? I don't think it will be done by B6 just showing up and running a bunch of intra-CA flights.
Furthermore, if B6 wants to make a name for itself in CA, its not going to be with SFO-ONT.
sbm12
Feb 22, 08, 9:38 pm
500-1500 miles is the "sweet spot" for yields and aircraft utilization, B6 should look for routes in that range.
Didn't I say that a couple weeks ago in the other thread about route idea :p :D
I couldn't agree more, and I'll even agree with your plan to add a bunch of AK routes, but it would take a much better onward route structure from SEA to do so, and I don't think that B6 can put that into place. It'd have to be 2-3x on an E190 to ANC and 2-3x to 3-5 500-1500 mile cities onward from SEA initially, and I'm not sure which cities they could do that for and not depress the yields so much as to make it a money losing effort rather than profitable.
Didn't I say that a couple weeks ago in the other thread about route idea :p :D
I couldn't agree more, and I'll even agree with your plan to add a bunch of AK routes, but it would take a much better onward route structure from SEA to do so, and I don't think that B6 can put that into place. It'd have to be 2-3x on an E190 to ANC and 2-3x to 3-5 500-1500 mile cities onward from SEA initially, and I'm not sure which cities they could do that for and not depress the yields so much as to make it a money losing effort rather than profitable.
prismwiz
Feb 23, 08, 11:31 am
Didn't I say that a couple weeks ago in the other thread about route idea :p :D
I couldn't agree more, and I'll even agree with your plan to add a bunch of AK routes, but it would take a much better onward route structure from SEA to do so, and I don't think that B6 can put that into place. It'd have to be 2-3x on an E190 to ANC and 2-3x to 3-5 500-1500 mile cities onward from SEA initially, and I'm not sure which cities they could do that for and not depress the yields so much as to make it a money losing effort rather than profitable.
Sorry, I should have referecned you. Routes from SEA 500-1500 miles for B6 to enter:
SAN (really, not 1X seasonal) at least 4X daily (5X better)
BUR 3-4X daily
More LGB 1-2X more
AUS (possibly a bit longer?)2X daily
MSP (if opened with JFK/BOS) connect E190's from East, JFK 2X BOS 1X SEA 3X
SLC 2-3X
ANC 4-5X
FAI 1X
JNU 1X
Also IAD 2X/FLL 1X Tcons
No SFO/SJC/RNO/SMF/OAK, WN and VX/UA from SFO in addition to AS
B6 would need at minimum 4X SEA-ANC-SEA flights though 5X would be better
SEA-ANC (approx)
0600--only O/D
1000
1500
2100
ANC-SEA (approx)
0045
0600
1200
1800--only O/D
I couldn't agree more, and I'll even agree with your plan to add a bunch of AK routes, but it would take a much better onward route structure from SEA to do so, and I don't think that B6 can put that into place. It'd have to be 2-3x on an E190 to ANC and 2-3x to 3-5 500-1500 mile cities onward from SEA initially, and I'm not sure which cities they could do that for and not depress the yields so much as to make it a money losing effort rather than profitable.
Sorry, I should have referecned you. Routes from SEA 500-1500 miles for B6 to enter:
SAN (really, not 1X seasonal) at least 4X daily (5X better)
BUR 3-4X daily
More LGB 1-2X more
AUS (possibly a bit longer?)2X daily
MSP (if opened with JFK/BOS) connect E190's from East, JFK 2X BOS 1X SEA 3X
SLC 2-3X
ANC 4-5X
FAI 1X
JNU 1X
Also IAD 2X/FLL 1X Tcons
No SFO/SJC/RNO/SMF/OAK, WN and VX/UA from SFO in addition to AS
B6 would need at minimum 4X SEA-ANC-SEA flights though 5X would be better
SEA-ANC (approx)
0600--only O/D
1000
1500
2100
ANC-SEA (approx)
0045
0600
1200
1800--only O/D