JetBlue TrueBlue - AUS Expansion

Based on an a.net thread, I took a look at the B6 website to see if the schedules were loaded and they were! Starting May 1, an AUS-MCO leg is being added to the LGB-AUS flight, and a FLL-AUS-SFO flight is being added as well, one RT/day. The flight numbers and times are listed below:

AUS-FLL - Flight 1402
2:35PM - 6:30PM

FLL-AUS - Flight 1401
4:20PM - 6:20PM

AUS-SFO - Flight 1401
6:55PM - 8:35PM

SFO-AUS - Flight 1402
8:30AM - 2:00PM

AUS-MCO - Flight 1416 (LGB flight arrives at 3:15PM)
4:00PM - 7:40PM

MCO-AUS - Flight 1417 (LGB flight departs at 6:00PM)
3:35PM - 5:20PM

Based on an a.net thread, I took a look at the B6 website to see if the schedules were loaded and they were! Starting May 1, an AUS-MCO leg is being added to the LGB-AUS flight, and a FLL-AUS-SFO flight is being added as well, one RT/day. The flight numbers and times are listed below:

AUS-FLL - Flight 1402
2:35PM - 6:30PM

FLL-AUS - Flight 1401
4:20PM - 6:20PM

AUS-SFO - Flight 1401
6:55PM - 8:35PM

SFO-AUS - Flight 1402
8:30AM - 2:00PM

AUS-MCO - Flight 1416 (LGB flight arrives at 3:15PM)
4:00PM - 7:40PM

MCO-AUS - Flight 1417 (LGB flight departs at 6:00PM)
3:35PM - 5:20PM



That's GREAT news!

I couldn't figure out if 1401 / 1402 are E190's or A320's?

All AUS flights are on 190s.

Here is the link:

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/business/stories/other/02/20/0220jetblue.html

This is sweet, now my mate can fly home to Texas on JetBlue!

Here's the Press Release (http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1110406&highlight=).

It's so nice to finally be able to talk about this openly!

Yes, yes, this is a great expansion for AUS. The general idea is to provide a stepping stone for the E190 to the west. If you look at the route map, AUS was the only logical choice. Weather delays are minimal (compared to the ORD/DEN options) and the AUS market has shown a strong performance since the station opened.

All flights will be the E190, except the daily BOS flight which will turn into an A320 as of May.

All flights will be the E190, except the daily BOS flight which will turn into an A320 as of May.

Understanding that the reasons for upgrade for the AUS-BOS from the E190 to the A320, will we see that route go to 2X daily when more birds come online? Possibly back down the E190?

Yes, yes, this is a great expansion for AUS. The general idea is to provide a stepping stone for the E190 to the west. If you look at the route map, AUS was the only logical choice. Weather delays are minimal (compared to the ORD/DEN options) and the AUS market has shown a strong performance since the station opened.



I guess it's one of those deals that if Austinites use the services, more will come - I'd really love to see an alternative to AA in other markets. I'm also sure the City would love to see Bergstrom live up to it's billing as an "International" airport - one flight a day to MEX barely counts!

If I read it right you'll have more than one aircraft on the ground in AUS at times? Does this mean you'll be getting another gate? Or are you going to acquire ExpressJet?

Or are you going to acquire ExpressJet?

I doubt that adding a third aircraft type to the fleet, operating as a regional carrier for the other majors or acquiring that many more additional planes are in B6's plans these days.

If I read it right you'll have more than one aircraft on the ground in AUS at times? Does this mean you'll be getting another gate? Or are you going to acquire ExpressJet?

There is no need to even consider ExpressJet as a major thread or on buyout terms. It has nothing to do with AUS besides a small amount of competition at that particular station.

If I read it right you'll have more than one aircraft on the ground in AUS at times? Does this mean you'll be getting another gate?

As scheduled now, AUS could theoretically run the operation from a single gate, as no 2 aircraft are *scheduled* on the ground simultaneously.

Flight 1060 departs at 7:00. (no a/c at gate for 3h55m)
Flight 1263 arrives at 10:55, departs at 11:30 as 1062. (35m turn, no a/c at gate for 44m)
Flight 1061 arrives at 12:14, departs at 12:55 as 1264. (41m turn, no a/c at gate for 1h5m)
Flight 1402 arrives at 2:00, departs at 2:35 as 1402. (35m turn, no a/c at gate for 1h25m)
Flight 1416 arrives at 3:15, departs at 4:00 as 1416. (45m turn, no a/c at gate for 23m)
Flight 1065 arrives at 4:23, departs at 5:00 as 1068. (37m turn, no a/c at gate for 20m)
Flight 1417 arrives at 5:20, departs at 6:00 as 1417. (40m turn, no a/c at gate for 20m
Flight 1401 arrives at 6:20, departs at 6:55 as 1401. (35m turn, no a/c at gate for 5h4m)
Flight 1069 arrives at 11:59. (overnights to become 1060)

The tightest scheduling provides a 20 minute gap in grounded a/c. So, theoretically, the published schedule could work out of one gate.

Would it, in practice? Doubtful.

Just something to chew on.

There is no need to even consider ExpressJet as a major thread or on buyout terms. It has nothing to do with AUS besides a small amount of competition at that particular station.


I wish I had a "tongue in cheek" icon....

As it happens ExpressJet aren't doing a spectacularly good job of selling their "own label" services, but I wasn't seriously advocating anything, least of all the idea of operating regional services for a legacy. That's a slow and ugly death.

IIRC correctly (I'm in England today) B6 have Gate 17 or 19 in AUS that was vacated by AA when they contracted. The couple of gates on the other side are UA I believe, while right down the other end there's ExpressJet with probably more room than they really know what to do with.

Told ya AUS would be how the 190s got out west! Congrats to AUS. I have fallen in love with that city and they deserve the expansion.

Understanding that the reasons for upgrade for the AUS-BOS from the E190 to the A320, will we see that route go to 2X daily when more birds come online? Possibly back down the E190?

Of course, anything is possible. The biggest inhibitor to more expansion in AUS is the lack of space at the airport. There are no other gates and counter space to take at the airport. There has been some thinking that if X9 keeps under-performing, they may leave a gate open for someone to take. AUS has also been planning on expansion of the airport, but this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Told ya AUS would be how the 190s got out west! Congrats to AUS. I have fallen in love with that city and they deserve the expansion.

I've been to Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston (unfortunately not via B6 - DFW for obvious reasons), but AUS is on my short list of Cities I want to go visit some day. Maybe I'll us B6 to get there.

Of course, anything is possible. The biggest inhibitor to more expansion in AUS is the lack of space at the airport. There are no other gates and counter space to take at the airport. There has been some thinking that if X9 keeps under-performing, they may leave a gate open for someone to take. AUS has also been planning on expansion of the airport, but this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Is X9 struggling at AUS or is it across the board?

There are no other gates and counter space to take at the airport. There has been some thinking that if X9 keeps under-performing, they may leave a gate open for someone to take. AUS has also been planning on expansion of the airport, but this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.


I wasn't in Austin for the whole thing, but apparently it took a VERY long time to agree to open Bergstrom. Anyone that remembers Mueller will tell you it was well past it's best before it finally closed!

There are a couple of other scenarios that could play out to B6's advantage over the next couple of months. In no particular order:

- AA is using one the gates at the end (25?) for Eagle services to DAL. They seem to be kept for political rather than commercial reasons and could presumably get shut at any time

- DL & NW merging might free up a gate, but that would be down the low numbered end

- CO & UA merging might be the best news as they have about 5 gates all close to B6

- HP (now US) might decide to close down some routes and their presence in AUS is pretty small

Is X9 struggling at AUS or is it across the board?



The are a lot of stories like this one:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUKN2255053420080122

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WASHINGTON, Jan 22 (Reuters) - Hayman Advisors LP on Tuesday reported that it owns a 6.25 percent stake in regional carrier ExpressJet Holdings Inc (XJT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and said the company should abandon its "branded flying" strategy.

The fund said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company should return to its fixed price and pro rate flying agreements, or risk further depressing the company's stock price.

Hayman said ExpressJet may have to issue new equity or additional convertible debt if it does not change its strategy. (Reporting by Karey Wutkowski, editing by Carol Bishopric)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


This is not the only pressure on them to give up their own branded operations. Apparently load factors are not good, etc etc etc.

- AA is using one the gates at the end (25?) for Eagle services to DAL. They seem to be kept for political rather than commercial reasons and could presumably get shut at any time

- DL & NW merging might free up a gate, but that would be down the low numbered end

- CO & UA merging might be the best news as they have about 5 gates all close to B6

- HP (now US) might decide to close down some routes and their presence in AUS is pretty small

AA's gate 25 would be nice, definitely another contender to X9's gates. DL & NW is more long-term, and only a slight chance that they will leave a gate open. CO & UA is a longshot, but their gates would be nice as they are immediately across and next to B6. US is actually expanding some of their service in the near future (adding CLT) so that may not be too good of an outlook.

Is X9 struggling at AUS or is it across the board?

X9.

It's a little joke around AUS that X9 is just an airline that transports non-revs to 2nd rate destinations. I've taken them a few times NRSA and have never seen a flight with more than 20 people. Many others report the same.

The company does well with its d.b.a. agreements (especially COEX) but not so much as its own brand airline. They are cutting service in the near future, I believe no more AUS-TUS, but someone more familiar with X9 could clarify that.

I wasn't in Austin for the whole thing, but apparently it took a VERY long time to agree to open Bergstrom. Anyone that remembers Mueller will tell you it was well past it's best before it finally closed!

There are a couple of other scenarios that could play out to B6's advantage over the next couple of months. In no particular order:

- AA is using one the gates at the end (25?) for Eagle services to DAL. They seem to be kept for political rather than commercial reasons and could presumably get shut at any time

- DL & NW merging might free up a gate, but that would be down the low numbered end

- CO & UA merging might be the best news as they have about 5 gates all close to B6

- HP (now US) might decide to close down some routes and their presence in AUS is pretty small

I doubt AA is going to get rid of Gate 25. They park the last flight in from DFW there every night. I wouldn't be surprised if AA tries to pick up an extra gate for AUS eventually.

The are a lot of stories like this one:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUKN2255053420080122

This is not the only pressure on them to give up their own branded operations. Apparently load factors are not good, etc etc etc.

Personally, I thought they jumped into a lot of markets way too quickly. Nevertheless, it I guess it is what it is. If X9 continues to shrink (they are shutting down their AUS-TUL, OKC, and MCI routes), gate and counter space will be coming up. It'll be interesting to watch the dog fight there for that space.

Of course, anything is possible. The biggest inhibitor to more expansion in AUS is the lack of space at the airport. There are no other gates and counter space to take at the airport. There has been some thinking that if X9 keeps under-performing, they may leave a gate open for someone to take. AUS has also been planning on expansion of the airport, but this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

American, Continental and Southwest went to court to shut down the city's expansion plans. The city's plans called for the creation of a no frills terminal (without jet bridges and the like) which would be leased to ulta-LCC's like SkyBus and the like. The rent for terminal space and the gate was to be corresponding reduced.

However, in the city's contracts with AA, CO, SW, they promised that all gates would be leased for the same price and everyone would pay the same for terminal rent (depending on size of operation, but the unit costs were equal). This, they claim would violate that agreement.

I'm sure everyone would like to expand the current terminal (and its a nice one) but its not going to happen the way the city originally envisioned it.

This is good news for those in Austin.

I wonder why B6 still hasn't decided to give SAT a try.

I doubt AA is going to get rid of Gate 25. They park the last flight in from DFW there every night. I wouldn't be surprised if AA tries to pick up an extra gate for AUS eventually.


IIRC correctly AA had two more gates when Bergstrom opened - one is the gate B6 uses today, the other has been taken over by WN - is that 12 where the pizza place is now? AA has become the famous shrinking airline, so it's not clear they'll want to add back capacity.

All flights will be the E190, except the daily BOS flight which will turn into an A320 as of May.


Flight 1263 [from BOS] arrives at 10:55, departs at 11:30 [to JFK] as 1062. (35m turn, no a/c at gate for 44m)
Flight 1061 [from JFK] arrives at 12:14, departs at 12:55 [to BOS] as 1264. (41m turn, no a/c at gate for 1h5m)


So if BOS is being upgraded to an A320 in May, wouldn't that mean one of the frequencies to JFK would be upgraded as well?

I'm sure everyone would like to expand the current terminal (and its a nice one) but its not going to happen the way the city originally envisioned it.


I believe there's space to extend the low numbered gate area where ExpressJet is now - they only have to demolish the building that's used for the GoCart track. That wouldn't require too much extra work on the infrastructure, would make the terminal symetrical and would easily get another handful of gates. It is, however, Austin and you can bet they'll find some kerosene eating lesser spotted lizards living under the GoKart track.


PS - I just looked at the master plan which seems to say that a symetrical terminal would have 52 gates which is quite a step up from the present.

I think WN could be respond to B6 has been adds more new routes from FLL-AUS. What about B6 does not have nonstop from FLL-SFO yet? :confused: Eventually B6 will continuation to gets more expansion new flight from FLL. Is that FLL-AUS will became all-year round, am I right?

So if BOS is being upgraded to an A320 in May, wouldn't that mean one of the frequencies to JFK would be upgraded as well?

Boy, that'll teach me to talk without double checking to see if any changes were made to the schedule! :)

Flight 1060 departs at 7:00. (no a/c at gate for 3h55m)
Flight 1263 arrives at 10:55, departs at 11:55 as 1264. (1h turn, no a/c at gate for 40m)
Flight 1061 arrives at 12:35, departs at 1:15 as 1062. (40m turn, no a/c at gate for 45m)
Flight 1402 arrives at 2:00, departs at 2:35 as 1402. (35m turn, no a/c at gate for 30m)
Flight 1416 arrives at 3:05, departs at 4:00 as 1416. (55m turn, no a/c at gate for 23m)
Flight 1065 arrives at 4:23, departs at 5:00 as 1068. (37m turn, no a/c at gate for 20m)
Flight 1417 arrives at 5:20, departs at 6:00 as 1417. (40m turn, no a/c at gate for 20m)
Flight 1401 arrives at 6:20, departs at 6:55 as 1401. (35m turn, no a/c at gate for 5h4m)
Flight 1069 arrives at 11:19. (overnights to become 1060)

jetBlue needs to add a nonstop to Seattle [year round too] and one to San Jose CA, both on the 190's.
If those flights are successful, they should add New Orleans [kick Xjet off that route], Burbank, Washington Dulles, Tampa [though they seem to have been ignoring TPA for a while now], Las Vegas [Yes, against WN and US] and Chicago O'Hare if they can get the slots.

The biggest inhibitor to more expansion in AUS is the lack of space at the airport. There are no other gates and counter space to take at the airport. There has been some thinking that if X9 keeps under-performing, they may leave a gate open for someone to take. AUS has also been planning on expansion of the airport, but this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

When Expressjet started in AUS, they initially had 18 daily departures, so they operate out of Gate 4 (upper level gate with a jet bridge) and Gate 1 (the ground level gate that can only be used by regional jets.)

Expressjet has already eliminated 2 flights to CRP and by mid-April the original 2 departures to TUL and 2 Departures to OKC and 2 more (I think) to MCI will be gone. They may very well be able to operate what's left over from Gate 1, leaving Gate 4 open. The apron in front of Gate 1 has room for more than 1 regional jet.

US Airways currently uses one gate in AUS (Gate 20) and if they chose to move down to Gate 4, that might leave Gate 20 for jetBlue, which is across the concourse from their current gate (Gate 19)

Re: expansion at AUS - the airport is expected to go before the City Council in late February/early March to request their approval to add 6-9 gates on the end of the East Concourse and at the last Airport Advisory Commission one of the items on the agenda was a master plan update, so I expect we'll be hearing more about that very soon.

I think WN could be respond to B6 has been adds more new routes from FLL-AUS. What about B6 does not have nonstop from FLL-SFO yet? :confused: Eventually B6 will continuation to gets more expansion new flight from FLL. Is that FLL-AUS will became all-year round, am I right?

I can see WN being rather ticked off that B6 is stepping things up pretty heavily at AUS, even if it is equally for the E190 stopping point as it is for the O&D traffic. But, that's business. You can't expect the competition to stay away from a good thing for too long.

As far as the SFO-FLL route goes, you have to remember that FLL is a big cruise ship/sunny destination spot, which California has also. IIRC, there are only about 400-500 people per day tops flying that route. B6 did try to tap that route by going OAK-FLL. After a couple of years with load factors near 60-65% (if I'm not mistaken), they dropped the route for more beneficial route. They drew a small crowd but it wasn't enough to cut it. Atleast B6 is providing connecting options of LGB and AUS.

jetBlue needs to add a nonstop to Seattle [year round too] and one to San Jose CA, both on the 190's.
If those flights are successful, they should add New Orleans [kick Xjet off that route], Burbank, Washington Dulles, Tampa [though they seem to have been ignoring TPA for a while now], Las Vegas [Yes, against WN and US] and Chicago O'Hare if they can get the slots.

They have been ignore Tampa because of the WN factor. Its just another route to go head to head with them over. We'll probably see some of these routes in time. The AUS-SEA tops my list. But I guess we'll see what develops over time.

American, Continental and Southwest went to court to shut down the city's expansion plans. The city's plans called for the creation of a no frills terminal (without jet bridges and the like) which would be leased to ulta-LCC's like SkyBus and the like. The rent for terminal space and the gate was to be corresponding reduced.

However, in the city's contracts with AA, CO, SW, they promised that all gates would be leased for the same price and everyone would pay the same for terminal rent (depending on size of operation, but the unit costs were equal). This, they claim would violate that agreement.

I don't believe the three airlines ever went to court. WN, AA and CO sent letters to the city complaining about the new low-cost terminal, saying it would give the airlines using it an unfair cost advantage.

The city basically told WN, AA, and CO sorry if you don't like it, but tough. Besides, AA, WN, and CO all lease gates from the city. The airlines who lease gates at the low-cost terminal will be leasing from General Electric Commercial Aviation Services (GECAS) the party who is designing, building, operating and maintaining the low-cost terminal.

Currently they are renovating an existing Texas National Guard Building as a temporary low-cost terminal. If passenger levels at that temporary terminal reach a certain level, GECAS has committed to build a permanent low-cost terminal that could have as many as 8 gates. At the end of GECAS' 30 year lease, that property would revert back to the City of Austin.

For more info, there's a 2-month ongoing thread over at airliners.net with links to transcripts of City Council meetings, news articles, WN's letter to the City and the City's response, etc.

WN & AUS in Dispute Over Low-cost Terminal (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3746530/)

aerial photo of AUS showing location of low-cost terminal (http://www.vivaaerobus.com/UserRsx/images/ABIA-South-Terminal_Aerial-of-site.jpg)

Rendering of temporary low-cost terminal (http://www.emediawire.com/prfiles/2008/01/29/230857/AustinSouthTerminal.jpg)

Viva Aerobus (Mexico's version of Skybus) is expected to start flying out of the temorary terminal to CUN and MTY starting May 1.

caphis had the schedule a little off. Here is the 100% accurate schedule for AUS (I have the check-in program in front of me to be completely accurate)...

Flight 1060 departs to JFK at 0700 (E190)

Flight 1263 arrives from BOS at 1115 (A320), 40 min turn, departs to BOS as 1264 at 1155

Flight 1061 arrives from JFK at 1235 (E190), 40 min turn, departs to JFK as 1062 at 1315

Flight 1402 arrives from SFO at 1400 (E190), 35 min turn, departs to FLL as 1402 at 1435

Flight 1416 arrives from LGB at 1505 (E190), 55 min turn, departs to MCO as 1416 at 1600

Flight 1065 arrives from JFK at 1623 (E190), 37 min turn, departs to JFK as 1068 at 1700

Flight 1417 arrives from MCO at 1720 (E190), 40 min turn, departs to LGB as 1417 at 1800

Flight 1401 arrives from FLL at 1820 (E190), 35 min turn, departs to SFO as 1401 at 1855

Flgiht 1069 arrives from JFK at 2319 (E190), becomes 1060 to JFK the following morning.

caphis had the schedule a little off. Here is the 100% accurate schedule for AUS (I have the check-in program in front of me to be completely accurate)...

...

Flight 1263 arrives from BOS at 1115 (A320), 40 min turn, departs to BOS as 1264 at 1155

...


Thanks for the update, Steve-- looks like things are still getting tweaked a bit here and there. The 10:55 flight 1263 arrival I posted on page 2 must have just been modified in the past hour and ten minutes, literally.

I imagine we'll be looking at a few more slight modifications between now and May. :-)

Yeah, ops has really bounced the schedule around today. Looks like this one makes the most sense. Earlier, when the schedule showed the BOS-AUS-JFK turn, the BOS-AUS leg was on a 320, but the AUS-JFK on a 190 - didn't make a lot of sense. But this one's a winner...for now...

I am glad to see everyone here is happy to see us growing Austin. I am a E190 Captain at JB and live in Austin as well. Its great to see the company putting faith in this market as I am sure it will do well. If you do fly us, please leave your feedback at www.jetblue.com so we know how we are doing. Our company really does read it and applies the recommendations to the operations. If these markets do well, we may see more growth in Austin. For the crews, its means more overnights at home :D

By the way, this is my first post here. I am a MOD over at FI but thought I would sign up over here so I can post with the general community.....this is a great site.

Longhorn

I am glad to see everyone here is happy to see us growing Austin. I am a E190 Captain at JB and live in Austin as well. Its great to see the company putting faith in this market as I am sure it will do well. If you do fly us, please leave your feedback at www.jetblue.com so we know how we are doing. Our company really does read it and applies the recommendations to the operations. If these markets do well, we may see more growth in Austin. For the crews, its means more overnights at home :D

By the way, this is my first post here. I am a MOD over at FI but thought I would sign up over here so I can post with the general community.....this is a great site.

Longhorn

Welcome aboard, Longhorn. You're joining a great group of people, including some of your wonderful crewmembers.

If these markets do well, we may see more growth in Austin.

Based on the evolving :) turn schedule, it seems like B6 might be able to sqeeze in one more daily roundtrip pretty easily, and if so, here's my suggestion.

Based on O&D statistics for 2Q 2007, the 10th and 11th most popular destinations out of AUS are

10) Washington DC - (IAD/DCA)

WAS - 1316 miles - 476 daily passengers - $269.25 avg. fare - 20.5 cents per mile

11) Baltimore

BWI - 1342 miles - 446 daily passengers - $182.03 avg. fare - 13.6 cents per mile

I remember reading awhile back that when jetBlue moved from it's old gates at IAD to the new gates in the expanded Concourse B, they gained 1 additional gate. Currently United Express is the only carrier serving AUS-IAD nonstop.

They offer two daily roundtrips.

If you go here:

http://timetables.oag.com/aus/

and enter IAD, it looks like a third daily United Express flight begins April 19. Service will be on E70 jet for the new morning departure, while the other two are served with CR7. There is no low-fare nonstop competition in this market.

WN offers two daily nonstop between AUS & BWI.

JetBlue keeps tweaking it's schedule out of AUS, but right now it looks like once they add all the new service, there will be a four-hour 15 minute period of time in the morning between 07:00 and 11:15 when there's no aircraft scheduled to be at the gate and another 4 hour and 24 minute period of time in the evening between 18:55 and 23:19 when there's no aircraft scheduled to be at the gate.

Jetblue could offer a morning departure to IAD between 08:00 and 10:30 and an evening arrival from IAD between 20:00 and 22:00.

AUS is a high-tech city and IAD is pretty much next door to the Dulles Technology Corridor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulles_Technology_Corridor)

The AUS-IAD could have a BOS tag and allow B6 to offer another frequency to AUS folks flying to BOS.

The only potential problem with this idea is that I've heard that there is currently little to no RON space at AUS. Not sure if that's true or not.

Just a thought, though.

And welcome to FlyerTalk LonghornFI.

jetBlue needs to add a nonstop to Seattle [year round too] and one to San Jose CA, both on the 190's.
If those flights are successful, they should add New Orleans [kick Xjet off that route], Burbank, Washington Dulles, Tampa [though they seem to have been ignoring TPA for a while now], Las Vegas [Yes, against WN and US] and Chicago O'Hare if they can get the slots.

SEA--2X daily, especially if B6 could get cnx to Florida
SJC--3X daily, provide more frequency than the Nerd Bird and see the nerds fly B6
MSY--no, if Xjet is struggling on the route with ERJ145's why waste an EMB190 on it? BTW, isn't Xjet's code XE, not X9 which has been used in the thread?
BUR--yes, make at times complimentary to LGB and effectivly circle the WN AUS-LAX flight
IAD--also good
TPA--for connections? Is there a big AUS-TPA market?
LAS--not against WN
ORD--no slots, AA/WN=blood=bath

I would add PDX 1X daily and SLC because B6 wants to build SLC up.

Still hoping for a SEA build up.

Welcome LonghornFI, good to see more posters who know things.

AUS is a high-tech city and IAD is pretty much next door to the Dulles Technology Corridor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulles_Technology_Corridor)

The AUS-IAD could have a BOS tag and allow B6 to offer another frequency to AUS folks flying to BOS.

The only potential problem with this idea is that I've heard that there is currently little to no RON space at AUS. Not sure if that's true or not.



I don't know where it figures on the O&D league table, but the other obvious high tech location in that area is RDU. AA has a "hot & cold" approach to AUS-RDU, though IIRC there's at least an MD80 and 1 or 2 RJ's much of the year, some of which offer onward service to BOS or LGA, though I'm not willing to fold myself up small enough to try that! Overall though, my preference would be to see more flights west rather than east.

It may not be so convenient, but isn't there a large piece of concrete in front of the Ultra-LCC shed at AUS that gets used for diverted flights, and presumably could add to the parking space?

BTW, isn't Xjet's code XE, not X9 which has been used in the thread?

You're right... my bad. I think I made a mental combination of F9 and XE

It may not be so convenient, but isn't there a large piece of concrete in front of the Ultra-LCC shed at AUS that gets used for diverted flights, and presumably could add to the parking space?

I don't know the Airport Authority policies, but I've never seen a RON in that area. AA's RONs that don't have a gate are parked just off the gate, look for them in the morning (along with some WNs). Another consideration is that airlines don't like towing planes... that's when they statistically get damaged the most.

SEA--2X daily, especially if B6 could get cnx to Florida

I support this wholeheartedly, but a second gate is absolutely needed before this could start. SEA would be awesome, and you're right, we can connect FL pax without sending them through JFK Hell.

SJC--3X daily, provide more frequency than the Nerd Bird and see the nerds fly B6

AA dominates this market with their own 3x daily. These flights are also very AA Elite heavy, it would be very tough competition, prob not gonna happen.

MSY--no, if Xjet is struggling on the route with ERJ145's why waste an EMB190 on it? BTW, isn't Xjet's code XE, not X9 which has been used in the thread?

Nail, head. No to AUS-MSY.

BUR--yes, make at times complimentary to LGB and effectivly circle the WN AUS-LAX flight

An interesting idea, but there are other cities to connect to before adding another LA basin city.

AUS-LAX flight

Again, AA dominates.

IAD--also good

I like that idea a lot. The only other non-stop competition is UA, and they aren't doing so well in the public eye, nor financially. We could put them out of their misery.

TPA--for connections? Is there a big AUS-TPA market?

WN does this route, and honestly, I have no idea if they fill their planes on it. Something to look into.

LAS--not against WN
ORD--no slots, AA/WN=blood=bath

LAS and ORD, you're right. Too much self-destruction there.

It may not be so convenient, but isn't there a large piece of concrete in front of the Ultra-LCC shed at AUS that gets used for diverted flights, and presumably could add to the parking space?

Actually, if you look at this aerial of AUS (http://www.vivaaerobus.com/UserRsx/images/ABIA-South-Terminal_Aerial-of-site.jpg) notice that there's a rectangular grassy area south of the West Concourse and north of the east-west taxiway. The master plan calls for at least part of that area to be paved over for additional RON space. Not sure when the city is going to get around to actually paving it, though.

I don't know where it figures on the O&D league table, but the other obvious high tech location in that area is RDU. AA has a "hot & cold" approach to AUS-RDU, though IIRC there's at least an MD80 and 1 or 2 RJ's much of the year, some of which offer onward service to BOS or LGA, ...

AUS-RDU ranks 24th in popularity at 221 daily passengers. In the past, AA ran 2 rj's that continued on to somewhere else, but they axed those 2 and now have 1 daily AUS-RDU-LGA roundtrip on an MD80. B6 could do something similar - maybe AUS-RDU-IAD?

WN does this route, [AUS-TPA] and honestly, I have no idea if they fill their planes on it. Something to look into.

WN's AUS-TPA flight is the second half of a LAX-AUS-TPA transcon, so the AUS-TPA leg is also supported by LAX.

(about AUS-SJC)
AA dominates this market with their own 3x daily. These flights are also very AA Elite heavy, it would be very tough competition, prob not gonna happen.


You're right about the elites - it's one of those routes where on Monday mornings they invite the elite card holders to board, and 50 people get up. The crazy thing is this ought to be a premiere route for AA, a real cash cow - it's business-heavy and almost a monopoly - companies pay decent prices so employees can get there for 8:30am PST.

Being an elite counts for little in terms of upgrades though - they're tough. Plus, when the leases on their ex-TWA 757's expired and the aircraft went to Delta, AA switched back to MD80's so now it's tough to get a seat at times.

Overall, it may be tough a tough contest but AA isn't paying this route the attention I would expect, therefore B6 ought to be able to fill an E190 as a first out in the morning, last back in the evening without having to work hard at it. I suppose where the aircraft goes from SJC during the day is the key to making it work.


(about AUS-LAX)
Again, AA dominates.


Sure, but quite a few people on this route are in the entertainment business in some way or other. B6 is a cooler option than AA.

I don't know the Airport Authority policies, but I've never seen a RON in that area. AA's RONs that don't have a gate are parked just off the gate, look for them in the morning (along with some WNs). Another consideration is that airlines don't like towing planes... that's when they statistically get damaged the most.


Yeh, you go into AUS for a 6am flight and they have aircraft hanging from hooks there are so many of them - IIRC UA leaves a couple there as well.

From the Austin American Statesman

JetBlue Weighing More Austin Flights (http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/other/02/22/0222austininc.html)

JetBlue considering more nonstops from Austin

JetBlue made a splash in Austin this week when it announced three more nonstop flights, bringing its total from Austin to six.

More could be coming: Chief executive Dave Barger, who flew in personally to make the announcement, said JetBlue would consider more routes out of Austin. One possibility: Dulles International Airport outside of Washington.

"We're working on it," Barger told business leaders at a breakfast meeting.

An airline representative said JetBlue will first want to see well how the new Florida and West Coast routes do before adding more. Those flights start in May.

I support this wholeheartedly, but a second gate is absolutely needed before this could start. SEA would be awesome, and you're right, we can connect FL pax without sending them through JFK Hell.



AA dominates this market with their own 3x daily. These flights are also very AA Elite heavy, it would be very tough competition, prob not gonna happen.

Nail, head. No to AUS-MSY.

An interesting idea, but there are other cities to connect to before adding another LA basin city.

Again, AA dominates.

I like that idea a lot. The only other non-stop competition is UA, and they aren't doing so well in the public eye, nor financially. We could put them out of their misery.

WN does this route, and honestly, I have no idea if they fill their planes on it. Something to look into.

LAS and ORD, you're right. Too much self-destruction there.

Thank you for your kind words, I strive to work in route planning in the future but right now I just play one on the internet.

I didn't know AA flew AUS-SJC 3X, I thought it was 2X w/ 757's. Still could be a useful route later in AUS expansion if B6 is planning on expanding AUS because 3 E190=2 MD80

I added AUS-BUR so if B6 wanted to add frequency they could but not take away slots from LGB.

Reread my post, I referenced AUS-LAX as a WN route that B6 could circle with BUR and LGB routes, not a route B6 should try.

TPA is a shot out of left field, but LAX was too so maybe.

I like AUS-SEA because B6 could provide 2X the amount of frequency as AA with only 1.5X the amount of seats. AA has gone away from B6 competition in the past so I see no reason that they won't end their seasonal AUS-SEA flight. As long as B6 can get into the Microsoft computer booking system (they are not at the moment to the best of my knowledge) then B6 should do fine. B6 should look closely at SEA and challange the incumbent AS, too bad VX made it so much harder :(.

IAD

I like that idea a lot. The only other non-stop competition is UA, and they aren't doing so well in the public eye, nor financially. We could put them out of their misery.


I don't think it's so simple. I would expect UA has a lot of connecting traffic to transatlantic flights at IAD, so it's not like they are going to run away from the route because B6 enters.

BTW, I'm curious - what IAD markets has B6 chased UA out of?

Sorry wrong thread lol

I don't think it's so simple. I would expect UA has a lot of connecting traffic to transatlantic flights at IAD, so it's not like they are going to run away from the route because B6 enters.

BTW, I'm curious - what IAD markets has B6 chased UA out of?

None, B6 missed their chance after DH died and before WN started IAD. DH could have bought DH's numbers and decided which routes to cherrypick. 1 E190=2 CR2's. Excluding the loss-leader fares DH had 1 E190 should=2.5 CR2's. Any route UA used to compete with B6 on and Ted is on is a route B6 has won, are there any of those routes?