JetBlue TrueBlue - Another new route LGB-PDX

More connecting the dots out west, per the WHERE WE JET PAGE


Starts OCtober 9

Nice to see some more West Coast flights!

Given that LGB is capacity-controlled, and jetBlue keeps adding destinations, where will this flight slot be taken from (i.e. what route disappears or loses frequency)?

Prolly JFK as it is nearly impossible to make money on transcon flights anymore

Looks as though it has been removed

Well nothing official but if it is te case looks like the webmaster was a little ahead of everybody else.


We're planning the following new service:

Austin, TX (AUS) and Portland, OR (PDX) starts October 9, 2008.*
Long Beach, CA (LGB) and Portland, OR (PDX) starts October 9, 2008.*
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) and Portland, OR (PDX) starts October 9, 2008.*
Chicago, IL/O’Hare (ORD) and Portland, OR (PDX) starts October 9, 2008.*
White Plains, NY (HPN) and Tampa, FL (TPA) starts November 2, 2008.*
Orlando, FL (MCO) and Richmond, VA (RIC) starts November 2, 2008.*
Washington, DC/Dulles (IAD) and West Palm Beach, FL (PBI) starts December 18, 2008.*
Washington, DC/Dulles (IAD) and Ft Myers, FL (RSW) starts December 18, 2008.*
Washington, DC/Dulles (IAD) and San Juan, PR (SJU) starts December 20, 2008.*

*This service is subject to receipt of government operating authority.


For a list of scheduled flights, please refer to the timetable.

I believe this will replace whatever routes ExpressJet was flying out of LGB? ExpressJet's contract with Delta ends on Oct 1st (I may be wrong on the date) so ExpressJet decided, due to falling revenues, not to fly out of LGB. This was the only route that flew to Reno.

Well nothing official but if it is te case looks like the webmaster was a little ahead of everybody else.

There are currently press releases for the new DC, White Plains, and Ric/MCO service on the Jetblue site:
http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irol-news&nyo=0

And the Where We Jet page agrees
New daily nonstop service starting soon between:

* White Plains, NY (HPN) and Tampa, FL (TPA) starts November 2, 2008.
* Orlando, FL (MCO) and Richmond, VA (RIC) starts November 2, 2008.
* Washington, DC/Dulles (IAD) and West Palm Beach, FL (PBI) starts December 18, 2008.
* Washington, DC/Dulles (IAD) and Fort Myers, FL (RSW) starts December 18, 2008.
* Washington, DC/Dulles (IAD) and San Juan, PR (SJU) starts December 20, 2008.


Alas, no AUS/PDX in that list at the moment

Interesting, kudos to B6 for adding service, probably at the expense of transcons.

There are currently press releases for the new DC, White Plains, and Ric/MCO service on the Jetblue site:
http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irol-news&nyo=0

And the Where We Jet page agrees
New daily nonstop service starting soon between:

* White Plains, NY (HPN) and Tampa, FL (TPA) starts November 2, 2008.
* Orlando, FL (MCO) and Richmond, VA (RIC) starts November 2, 2008.
* Washington, DC/Dulles (IAD) and West Palm Beach, FL (PBI) starts December 18, 2008.
* Washington, DC/Dulles (IAD) and Fort Myers, FL (RSW) starts December 18, 2008.
* Washington, DC/Dulles (IAD) and San Juan, PR (SJU) starts December 20, 2008.


Alas, no AUS/PDX in that list at the moment

Try booking LAS-PDX, for example, in mid October. You then encounter the new services message that JetblueFA posted.

Interesting, kudos to B6 for adding service, probably at the expense of transcons.

I doubt that this will be at the expense of transcons, by which I mean that they are unlikely to cut (m)any to make it happen. They have a lot of new planes coming online even with some deferrals, so they need to add them to routes somewhere. I applaud JetBlue for trying to go after new routes instead of just trying to add frequencies on existing routes. Plus it will likely let them actually sell seats for more money where adding to existing routes would not as most are fully saturated in terms of service.

All of the flights will be operated non-stop as it looks now. They are still listed separately if you try to confirm a date on any one of those itineraries. Once the press release comes out, which may be tomorrow given that it is already "out of the bag," it should be possible to book those flights.

If this is indeed true it looks like we might be trying to cut off Virgin America before they start their north/south flying. They seem to be hell bent on expandng via transon flights, where we already have a pretty good customer base. Not to mention the talk out of the Virgin America camp is that they might be getting out of the transcon business, at least that's what i've heard from some friends over there.

Huh. Five cities out of PDX would give it more B6 destinations than OAK; wonder if it'll get upped to focus-city status.

AA dropped ORD-PDX last year, leaving only UA with a nonstop.

Huh. Five cities out of PDX would give it more B6 destinations than OAK; wonder if it'll get upped to focus-city status.

AA dropped ORD-PDX last year, leaving only UA with a nonstop.

Correct! UA will be remain same exact PDX-ORD for awhile. I'm sure UA doesn't wants leave from PDX-ORD nonstop. I don't think AA will ever coming back resume nonstop PDX-ORD near of the future. IT was reason why AA is dropped due to fuel rising. It will be very expensive the gas prices. If AA still have enough the financial for savable the money. It doesn't want losing the money.

Looks like jetBlue is wising up to our sneaky ways (finding out routes before they're announced by trying to book them. Since apparently they need to file the fares the day before they're announced and are bookable, they seem to just have zeroed the fare buckets out on all of the new flights so that we can't see their schedules (the fact that if there are no available flights between 2 cities, the booking engine just gives an error message instead of a list of the flights that aren't available is what makes this possible).

However, on the JFK-PDX route, there is a flight that is available (the direct one), and it appears they've created another option through LGB. This is the only flight in the system where this works (everywhere else either there aren't connections except through JFK or there never were connections).

LGB - PDX: 4:55PM - 7:15PM
PDX - LGB: 7:15AM - 9:40AM

Looks like we'll just have to wait for the other flights' scheds!

Given that LGB is capacity-controlled, and jetBlue keeps adding destinations, where will this flight slot be taken from (i.e. what route disappears or loses frequency)?

One JFK and one BOS, the way things look now.

Looks like jetBlue is wising up to our sneaky ways (finding out routes before they're announced by trying to book them. Since apparently they need to file the fares the day before they're announced and are bookable, they seem to just have zeroed the fare buckets out on all of the new flights so that we can't see their schedules (the fact that if there are no available flights between 2 cities, the booking engine just gives an error message instead of a list of the flights that aren't available is what makes this possible).

However, on the JFK-PDX route, there is a flight that is available (the direct one), and it appears they've created another option through LGB. This is the only flight in the system where this works (everywhere else either there aren't connections except through JFK or there never were connections).

LGB - PDX: 4:55PM - 7:15PM
PDX - LGB: 7:15AM - 9:40AM

Looks like we'll just have to wait for the other flights' scheds!

Subject to change, of course, you can dig around on the booking tool to find the others:

LGB-PDX flight 1422, 11:10 AM - 1:35 PM
PDX-LGB flight 1423, 2:10 PM - 4:25 PM

LGB-PDX flight 1424, 5:05 PM - 7:30 PM
PDX-LGB flight 1421, 7:30 AM - 9:45 AM

All on the E190.

this is an interesting move. just curious as to whether there's enough people that need to fly PDX-AUS... i mean from SEA standpoint you have microsoft people who need to fly SEA-AUS..but from PDX i dont really know about that one.

I doubt that this will be at the expense of transcons, by which I mean that they are unlikely to cut (m)any to make it happen. They have a lot of new planes coming online even with some deferrals, so they need to add them to routes somewhere. I applaud JetBlue for trying to go after new routes instead of just trying to add frequencies on existing routes. Plus it will likely let them actually sell seats for more money where adding to existing routes would not as most are fully saturated in terms of service.

They are only netting 3 new A320's this year, next year as well.

BOS-LGB is losing one r/t as well as JFK-LGB one r/t

They are only netting 3 new A320's this year, next year as well.

BOS-LGB is losing one r/t as well as JFK-LGB one r/t

So a couple transcons cut and and adding over 10 new routes that were announced this week. Some of the PDX routes will be on E190s, which they are taking more deliveries of this year. A pretty good trade, IMO.

this is an interesting move. just curious as to whether there's enough people that need to fly PDX-AUS... i mean from SEA standpoint you have microsoft people who need to fly SEA-AUS..but from PDX i dont really know about that one.

I doubt there are enough people who want to fly between AUS and PDX to support a flight. But there doesn't need to be. AUS can be used as a connecting point between PDX and Florida (MCO and FLL) and vice versa.

Hope it works out. PDX has been on my list of cities I want to visit.

BOS-LGB is losing one r/t as well as JFK-LGB one r/t

Not suprising considering the rising fares due to fuel prices. Price goes up and the demand (or in other terms, Load Factors) goes down. They probably needed to cut them any ways. Atleast these 2 birds can be used else where.

I doubt there are enough people who want to fly between AUS and PDX to support a flight. But there doesn't need to be. AUS can be used as a connecting point between PDX and Florida (MCO and FLL) and vice versa.

Hope it works out. PDX has been on my list of cities I want to visit.

IMHO, that's what their banking on. Let's through some arbitrary numbers out. Let's say JetBlue picks up 50 pax/daily AUS-PDX each way. Its not enough to support the flight (unless they are paying unusually high fares). But, if you add in 15 on the MCO route and 15 on the FLL route, now you have 80 people on the E190 between AUS and PDX. An 80% LF is consistant with a lot of their other routes.

IMHO, that's what their banking on. Let's through some arbitrary numbers out. Let's say JetBlue picks up 50 pax/daily AUS-PDX each way. Its not enough to support the flight (unless they are paying unusually high fares). But, if you add in 15 on the MCO route and 15 on the FLL route, now you have 80 people on the E190 between AUS and PDX. An 80% LF is consistant with a lot of their other routes.

While I agree that the 80% number is close to their LF across the board, there is another issue that has to be considered - yield. If the 30 connecting passengers are paying the same as the 50 O/D passengers but flying two flights they may prove to be just as unprofitable as the pax flying the non-stop transcons below cost. With PDX-AUS at ~1700 miles that puts the cost for flying a seat on the route somewhere around $150-170. If a passenger is paying $250 for the connecting transcon they may actually not be profitable for B6 because the cost increases a bit with the connecting flight (the climb-out and descent are less efficient than cruising at altitude). And that $250 has to cover both flights (PDX-AUS and AUS-FLL/MCO).

Overall I think that B6 management is pretty attuned to these issues and will have accounted for them, but it is always good to remember that just filling a plane up doesn't mean that the route (or carrier) will be successful. Just ask SkyBus.

IMHO, that's what their banking on. Let's through some arbitrary numbers out. Let's say JetBlue picks up 50 pax/daily AUS-PDX each way. Its not enough to support the flight (unless they are paying unusually high fares). But, if you add in 15 on the MCO route and 15 on the FLL route, now you have 80 people on the E190 between AUS and PDX. An 80% LF is consistant with a lot of their other routes.

And it increases my hope of AUS becoming a B6 mid-country focus city (basically a small version of AA's DFW). That would rule.

The press release just came out...
http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1175703&highlight=

E190 service, starting 1x and going to 2x later in the year.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Portland, Ore. (PDX) to Long Beach, Calif. (LGB) to
Long Beach, Calif. (LGB) Portland, Ore. (PDX)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Depart - Arrive Depart - Arrive
-----------------------------------------------------------------
7:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m. 11:10 a.m. - 1:35 p.m.
(Daily eff. October 10) (Daily eff. November 2)
2:10 p.m. - 4:25 p.m. 5:05 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
(Daily eff. November 2) (Daily eff. October 9)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

USA Today confirms with the company that
1. LGB will be the only new route from PDX
2. Actually, PDX will lose its JFK service over the winter months.

So at the end of the day, it seems like its a net loss of seats for PDX after the fall, but you can get there with a less than convenient connection.

From the press release:

Portland customers traveling to destinations beyond Long Beach may take advantage of easy connecting service to seven additional cities including Austin, Tex.; Boston; Chicago (O'Hare); Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; Las Vegas; New York (JFK); and Washington (Dulles).

OK, I can see how someone flying from PDX to AUS would be able to do so via a connection in LGB. PDX-LGB arrives LGB at 09:45, and the LGB-AUS flight departs at 10:20 which allows for a 35-minute connection. But how are passengers supposed to make the return trip? The only AUS-LGB flight departs AUS at 17:47 and arrives LGB at 18:58, nearly two hours after the last LGB-PDX flight departs LGB at 17:05.

But how are passengers supposed to make the return trip? The only AUS-LGB flight departs AUS at 17:47 and arrives LGB at 18:58, nearly two hours after the last LGB-PDX flight departs LGB at 17:05.

Good question. Maybe they are looking at addressing that inconsistency before the route begins. I hear there is some extra gate space that will be coming available shortly there in AUS. I'd be surprised if the new 190's coming on line over the next year or two aren't somewhow attached to AUS. It seems to be working out well so far.

Good question. Maybe they are looking at addressing that inconsistency before the route begins. I hear there is some extra gate space that will be coming available shortly there in AUS. I'd be surprised if the new 190's coming on line over the next year or two aren't somewhow attached to AUS. It seems to be working out well so far.

There should be several available gates by the Fall with ExpressJet ceasing ops (Gates 1 and 4) and (my conjecture) AA and CO very possibly dumping a gate each (Gates 25 and 22, respectively, are most likely, if it occurs) Also Frontier only runs 3 flights a day to AUS, and currently shares Gate 24 with Midwest who is ending Austin service, so they could opt for a share there if need be. I've seen B6 'borrow' 24 when they had 2 planes on the ground simultaneously (due to a delay of 1 of them) at Austin. Finally, if B6 decides they want some Mexico service from Austin, Gate 2 (the 'international' gate) currently gets 1 Air Canada flight a day, so it's wide open.

B6 currently operates from Gate 19 (a former AA gate, as it is). Here's to hoping for more....

JFK-PDX goes away this winter and will return as a daily flight in the summer months.

JFK-PDX goes away this winter and will return as a daily flight in the summer months.

Was SLC-PDX ever an option as opposed to LGB-PDX? SLC doesn't have the issue with slot restrictions and shorter travel times from the Northeast to PDX.

JFK-PDX goes away this winter and will return as a daily flight in the summer months.

:confused: Jetblue.com is still booking JFK-PDX rt nonstop through January daily.

:confused: Jetblue.com is still booking JFK-PDX rt nonstop through January daily.

They prolly haven't gotten around to removing it yet, but trust me during the winter JFK-PDX will be done away with. Winter books have always been week and don't warrant continuing with oil at $140. Summer bookings on the other hand...golden

Was SLC-PDX ever an option as opposed to LGB-PDX? SLC doesn't have the issue with slot restrictions and shorter travel times from the Northeast to PDX.

But likely very little O/D traffic. ;)

USA Today confirms with the company that
1. LGB will be the only new route from PDX
2. Actually, PDX will lose its JFK service over the winter months.

So at the end of the day, it seems like its a net loss of seats for PDX after the fall, but you can get there with a less than convenient connection.

I think it is number#2. It will be losing service for PDX-JFK during the winter seasonal 2008/2009. I'm sure B6 will getting more slots controlled in LGB. How is possibility from B6 is getting more slots coming from? :confused:

I think it is number#2. It will be losing service for PDX-JFK during the winter seasonal 2008/2009. I'm sure B6 will getting more slots controlled in LGB. How is possibility from B6 is getting more slots coming from? :confused:

All the airlines have been trimming their schedules for the Fall. Likely, some other airline(s) cut a flight or two, opening up a slot.

LGB is a pleasant and easy to use airport. About 95% less stressful than LAX or other Southern California airports.

Interesting thing, looking at the website, Oct 9 - Oct 31 --> 1x Daily and from Nov 1 on two daily flights. Also, when I selected JFK-PDX the flights via LGB are "sold out." There is a JFK-PDX non-stop listed through Jan. Is this just because maybe they are updating the system or something like that? What if peope book the flights in Jan for JFK-PDX n/s?

Interesting thing, looking at the website, Oct 9 - Oct 31 --> 1x Daily and from Nov 1 on two daily flights. Also, when I selected JFK-PDX the flights via LGB are "sold out." There is a JFK-PDX non-stop listed through Jan. Is this just because maybe they are updating the system or something like that? What if peope book the flights in Jan for JFK-PDX n/s?

If they're still showing "sold out" after the press release, it's likely due to a system update.

As I understand it, the JFK-PDX route isn't going away entirely; just a reduction from 7x/week. Customers booked on flights which are later cancelled is nothing new- if that's the case, they'll likely be offered routing through LGB, day changes, or refunds. It's not an entirely uncommon situation.