JetBlue TrueBlue - JetBlue Adds SLC-LAS and Nevada feels a Quake

2 totally seperate stories but I thought it was funny to incorporate them

Go West With JetBlue: Now Offering Nonstop Service From Salt Lake City to Sin City (http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=136763)

Magnitude 6.0 quake shakes eastern Nevada (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8323970?source=most_viewed)

B6 should add
SLC-SMF
SLC-SJC
SLC-TUS
SLC-AUS
SLC-MCO

B6 should add
SLC-SMF
SLC-SJC
SLC-TUS
SLC-AUS
SLC-MCO

Let's not get too ambicious. We've seen almost a dozen new routes announced the last week. I'm all for growth but I've seen more announcements than I would have expected for six months from FSC.

Nevertheless, way to go, Blue. I'm glad to see things are going well enough to expand things. ^^^

What happen to slow down in growth??

The flight is on an A320 1X daily. Is LAS getting a new frequency to the East Coast? arrival 4:10 departing 9:30?

B6 should add
SLC-SMF
SLC-SJC
SLC-TUS
SLC-AUS
SLC-MCO

Not yet. You probably will see B6 is continuation more demand growth at SLC. perhaps if B6 will gets new routes from SLC-FLL/PHX/LAX/SEA/IAD instead of one-stop to eastern cities.

The slowing growth refers to the addition of new cities. Adding new routes between existing cities doesn't really add any extreme costs, at least that is my view on things. From what I've been hearing (rumor wise) this is the tip of the iceburg for the west coast.

The slowing growth refers to the addition of new cities. Adding new routes between existing cities doesn't really add any extreme costs, at least that is my view on things. From what I've been hearing (rumor wise) this is the tip of the iceburg for the west coast.

From my personal standpoint, slowing growth means expanding the network at a slower, but consistent rate. Adding new routes may not add much in terms of startup costs, but you have to factor in the costs that add up over time. Rerouting an aircraft for a non-profitable route hurts the bottom line. These new routes have to be flown by someone, so if JetBlue suddenly expands the network even by adding flights between cities they're already at, there's a need to add flight crews, tech ops, airports crewmembers, etc. Should these routes be failures, there is potential for an overstaffing situation.

Honestly, and this is just opinion, I don't see how JetBlue has the aircraft resources to manage all of the new flights recently announced -- let alone more to come, if your speculation is true. A bad day in Kennedy drags down the whole operational day as it is; the way it's set up now, one bad day in Austin will bring down a lot of these new routes. Not saying it's as likely (as Kennedy sees problems ranging from weather, ATC management, volume, anything as small as a pin dropping in the tower), but it could happen.

I definitely see this as contrary to the "slower growth" mindset. The network IS growing, and JetBlue may not be adding cities just yet, but there's definite a large, quick expansion. Whether or not this is the "tip of the iceberg" for the same problems faced before is yet to be seen.

The solution? I'm not sure, honestly. "Expand or die" is definitely true in the position from which JetBlue sits in this industry. It's just a question of whether this is the proper way to expand, or if it has the potential for a quick overexpansion. It all looks good on paper, but I guess we'll see how it plays out when it begins.

Don't get me wrong-- I'm all about growing B6 and am obviously in support of making wise choices and profit. But JetBlue also has to be cautious and wary going into this. They could end up putting more eggs than they have into a smaller basket than they think.

Thank you for both of your insights, I love Jetblue and only want the best for it and it just concerns me a wee bit.

Don't get me wrong-- I'm all about growing B6 and am obviously in support of making wise choices and profit. But JetBlue also has to be cautious and wary going into this. They could end up putting more eggs than they have into a smaller basket than they think.


In many ways I like the approach they've taken this week. One of the good things is the E190 - it allows B6 to open a route at a relatively low risk, to test it small, then add frequency and/or bigger aircraft later depending on the results.

The other very good thing about many of the routes they've announced is they're not likely to hit the legacies head on in the way they have been on the Transcons, where the pricing has been brutally low.

Another way for jetBlue to grow out West would be to buy Virgin America if they fail.
VX set out to do transcons but then found the margins sucked when up against jetBlue, American, Delta, United and Continental. Then, they tried short haul in the West and Southwest now has 12D to LAX to their 7D [By July], United's 17D and American's 7D. Las Vegas and San Diego have been the same way with Southwest adding a lot of flights [10D to SAN by July and 7D to LAS]. Finally, they've tried to add SEA and Alaska has added a bunch of flights and then there's United.
Now, they've applied to Cabo flights. This is a route Frontier couldn't make work [similar product, seatback TV's, leather etc] and there's three carriers [Alaska, American and Mexicana] competing here. It just doesn't seem like it could work. Maybe I'll be proven wrong.
With all the cash they got for start up, they can stick around for a while but
eventually, they are going to crash [Fiscally, not literally] and burn.

Thus, jetBlue buys them out, making a big media blitz of relaunching their old routes and cutting capacity on overlapping ones [JFK-SFO, JFK-LAX]. jetBlue's already known and liked out West [though not as much as in the East] and VX's old routes mesh decently with jetBlue's routes. jetBlue's fleet goes to 154 jets and could trade/sell their A319's.

319's would prolly stay, rumor has it Mr. Chew has expressed intrest in turning options for 320s into 319 and 321 orders. Just the latest rumor that has been running thru the company.

Three cheers for caphis for his excellent summary of the future of B6. When does AUS have weather anyway? Also, how will the upcoming snowstorm effect B6? (I'm in NYC). Flying back to SEA on Saturday (on CO :().

The extra capacity that seems to be appearing here in May is from the Florida runs currently in the schedule. Come May 1 all of these will be reduced significantly which will free up the aircraft for the West Coast expansion. Also with the new 190 routes, ratcheting up the daily utilization is all it takes to run these flights. With 35 190's by May there will be plenty for these runs and more to be announced soon.

Three cheers for caphis for his excellent summary of the future of B6. When does AUS have weather anyway? Also, how will the upcoming snowstorm effect B6? (I'm in NYC). Flying back to SEA on Saturday (on CO :().

About 1 year ago this past December, I was stuck down there for 3 days because of a Texas sized ice storm :D I'd keep on eye on tomorrow as it may get ugly. I'm attempting to commute into BOS to operate a trip and it's not suppose to BOS until after noon so i'm keeping my fingers crossed.

The flight is on an A320 1X daily. Is LAS getting a new frequency to the East Coast? arrival 4:10 departing 9:30?

What is your source for me, please? I must to know which specific flight schedule is that for SLC-LAS-SLC? :confused:

Let's not get too ambicious. We've seen almost a dozen new routes announced the last week. I'm all for growth but I've seen more announcements than I would have expected for six months from FSC.

Nevertheless, way to go, Blue. I'm glad to see things are going well enough to expand things. ^^^

Or maybe the opposite is true, that things arent going as they thought/hoped and thusly expansion to new routes is where they are hoping to see the better results coming in from, or to try and stop VX from getting in before them.

heres to both B6 and VX finding very profitable routes and both being around for the very long future. With mergers on the horizion among the oldies Im for whatever it takes to keep the fares down

About 1 year ago this past December, I was stuck down there for 3 days because of a Texas sized ice storm :D I'd keep on eye on tomorrow as it may get ugly. I'm attempting to commute into BOS to operate a trip and it's not suppose to BOS until after noon so i'm keeping my fingers crossed.


That ice storm last winter was by far the worst I've heard of in Austin in the last decade. IIRC it was bad enough the airport ran out of deicing fluid!

There's often one short lived ice storm a year, and I've seen a snow fall that melted within a couple of hours.

Austin's pretty much free of tornados, but gets a few thunderstorms that can stall the airport for an hour or two, mostly Spring and Summer afternoons/evenings.

Overall the weather isn't as severe as ORD or DEN which were mentioned before, or DFW for that matter - it isn't totally free of problems but it seems to be better than most of the centre of the country.

Another way for jetBlue to grow out West would be to buy Virgin America if they fail.
VX set out to do transcons but then found the margins sucked when up against jetBlue, American, Delta, United and Continental. Then, they tried short haul in the West and Southwest now has 12D to LAX to their 7D [By July], United's 17D and American's 7D. Las Vegas and San Diego have been the same way with Southwest adding a lot of flights [10D to SAN by July and 7D to LAS]. Finally, they've tried to add SEA and Alaska has added a bunch of flights and then there's United.
Now, they've applied to Cabo flights. This is a route Frontier couldn't make work [similar product, seatback TV's, leather etc] and there's three carriers [Alaska, American and Mexicana] competing here. It just doesn't seem like it could work. Maybe I'll be proven wrong.
With all the cash they got for start up, they can stick around for a while but
eventually, they are going to crash [Fiscally, not literally] and burn.

Thus, jetBlue buys them out, making a big media blitz of relaunching their old routes and cutting capacity on overlapping ones [JFK-SFO, JFK-LAX]. jetBlue's already known and liked out West [though not as much as in the East] and VX's old routes mesh decently with jetBlue's routes. jetBlue's fleet goes to 154 jets and could trade/sell their A319's.

Sorry. But buying VX would be a complete waste of resources. They have absolutely nothing to offer. VX are 8 years too late.

Another way for jetBlue to grow out West would be to buy Virgin America if they fail.

No need for B6 to buy something that's failing.

If B6 wants more planes they can buy some themselves using other methods.

If B6 buys Virgin is just opens up problems with integrating the two operations.

B6 should just hope that Virgin goes the way of Independence Air.

B6 should just hope that Virgin goes the way of Independence Air.

That might be good for B6 but will be very bad for the Consumer. When Indy was around UA had to keep their fares much lower, once Indy went belly-up up went UAs fares. To boot even w/o Indy UA still has its share of problems.

So I dont wish VX to be taken over by B6 or anyone else nor for them to fail. Funny when B6 started up alot of others were hoping that they would go the way of TW or PN. I didnt I wanted them to Fail, not cause I was gonna be flying them, but for very Selfish reasons, it forces all the Carriers to keep their fares down.

What is your source for me, please? I must to know which specific flight schedule is that for SLC-LAS-SLC? :confused:

From the press release at the start of the thread:
JetBlue's new service between Salt Lake City and Las Vegas:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Salt Lake City (SLC) to Las Vegas (LAS) to
Las Vegas (LAS) Salt Lake City (SLC)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Depart - Arrive Depart - Arrive
-------------------------------------------------------------------
7:55 p.m. - 8:15 p.m. 4:55 p.m. - 7:15 p.m.
(daily effective (daily effective
May 1, 2008) May 1, 2008)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--All times local--
-------------------------------------------------------------------

VX does not want to be sold and they will fight to the end in a way reminding us of DH. UA hub, quality product, not the best hub placement, hub-spoke system, flies A319's. Just no CR2's. VX will fold on its own, which is why I'm flying them at first chance (when they come to SEA).

About the AUS icestorm last year, AUS is still a better connecter than other airports because it is farther south. AUS has a lower probablility of a KO storm than STL/ORD/MKE/MSP or other proposed E190 transfer stations. What should B6 do? Transfer their E190's through MEX?

That might be good for B6 but will be very bad for the Consumer. When Indy was around UA had to keep their fares much lower, once Indy went belly-up up went UAs fares. To boot even w/o Indy UA still has its share of problems.

Of course having Virgin around helps the consumer. But as it relates to buying Virgin, B6 doing that won't help consumers either.

So I dont wish VX to be taken over by B6 or anyone else nor for them to fail. Funny when B6 started up alot of others were hoping that they would go the way of TW or PN. I didnt I wanted them to Fail, not cause I was gonna be flying them, but for very Selfish reasons, it forces all the Carriers to keep their fares down.

Not necessarily will Virgin force all carriers to have low fares. If Virgin is not successful, other carriers won't care what Virgin does. Its similar to when Spirit runs their $9 fares. Not everyone does the same thing.

Point is, whether you're taking a B6-centric view or a Consumer-centric view, there isn't much reason for B6 to buy Virgin.

Of course having Virgin around helps the consumer. But as it relates to buying Virgin, B6 doing that won't help consumers either.

Not necessarily will Virgin force all carriers to have low fares. If Virgin is not successful, other carriers won't care what Virgin does. Its similar to when Spirit runs their $9 fares. Not everyone does the same thing.

Point is, whether you're taking a B6-centric view or a Consumer-centric view, there isn't much reason for B6 to buy Virgin.

There's a difference between the $9 fare sale and regular seats offered at a very low price.

As for benefitiing the consumer, there is a bit of a microeconomic/macroeconomic thing to be considered. I benefit individually if I can fly somewhere super cheap. But that doesn't mean that all consumers benefit from it, especially when the carrier goes out of business, putting thousands of people out of work and screwing with the economy on a reasonably large scale. Obviously VX or Indy going under didn't shake the underpinnings of the American economy, and the feds wouldn't let one of the really big majors go under, but there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides. Companies operating for extended periods of time while losing monsy doesn't actually benefit the economy in the long run, and consumers are all part of the economy.

I do agree that there'd be no point in buying out VX. B6 doesn't need the planes; they're getting plenty of new ones these days - maybe too many. If B6 wanted to start the routes they'd just put the planes into those cities and do so. The only place it might matter is JFK bbecause of the upcoming slot controls, but even then B6 could just buy those, similar to the way AA only purchased parts of TWA.

With 35 190's by May there will be plenty for these runs and more to be announced soon.

There is definitely enough 190's in the system to support a west-coast start-up(recall the main issue of bringing them out was reliability which seems to be solved) and possibly even a ramp-up if things go well. Although, it seems like you may have a better idea than me. So, will these new announcements be a continuation of the north-south JFK flyover strategy we have seen on the east coast or do you see the additions affecting the West Coast more? Do tell.;)