Long Beach Rejects LGB Customs Facility Proposal
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: SMF
Posts: 1,251
Long Beach Rejects LGB Customs Facility Proposal
Long Beach just voted against any further consideration of constructing a customs facility at LGB to allow B6 (and other airlines) to operate international flights. Since this was part of JetBlue's long term plans, it will be interesting to see how they respond, and if they begin to cut back service.
I would be very disappointed to see JetBlue start to withdraw, but it seems their hand may be forced.
Cranky did a great write-up about their decision: http://crankyflier.com/2017/01/26/lo...-jetblue-walk/
I would be very disappointed to see JetBlue start to withdraw, but it seems their hand may be forced.
Cranky did a great write-up about their decision: http://crankyflier.com/2017/01/26/lo...-jetblue-walk/
#2
Suspended
Join Date: Apr 2016
Programs: SkyMiles, AAdvantage, TrueBlue, Rapid Rewards, Global Entry
Posts: 204
The NIMBY's (to use a polite phrase) of LGB strike again. JetBlue in all honesty would be wise to keep a couple flights out of LGB but move the majority of the operations to SNA/ONT/LAX.
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: SMF
Posts: 1,251
That being said, I wouldn't blame B6 for leaving or scaling back at all. They've put so much into the airport and community there and just got burned. Unfortunately there's nowhere they could create a hub that has the slots available that they have at LGB. Maybe we'll see them do more point to point flying and abandon the west coast hub idea completely.
#8
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Cape Cod
Programs: Free agent
Posts: 1,535
Same here, anytime I need to go to the LA basin, it always makes so much more sense to fly into LGB given the low fares and the ease of the airport. How many airports are there in California when you can consistently arrive at the airport 30 minutes before your flight and go from curb to the gate in 2 minutes.
That being said, I wouldn't blame B6 for leaving or scaling back at all. They've put so much into the airport and community there and just got burned. Unfortunately there's nowhere they could create a hub that has the slots available that they have at LGB. Maybe we'll see them do more point to point flying and abandon the west coast hub idea completely.
That being said, I wouldn't blame B6 for leaving or scaling back at all. They've put so much into the airport and community there and just got burned. Unfortunately there's nowhere they could create a hub that has the slots available that they have at LGB. Maybe we'll see them do more point to point flying and abandon the west coast hub idea completely.
#9
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: GE
Posts: 247
It is a shame that the application for FIS was denied but closing down ops in LGB because of that would just be sour grapes. LGB is an outstanding facility post-renovation and an excellent west-coast hub for B6.
Honestly if B6 slows or stops servicing LGB then I will probably switch airlines. They would need massive upgrades at LAX to compete there and SNA/ONT are nonstarters given how far away they are.
Honestly if B6 slows or stops servicing LGB then I will probably switch airlines. They would need massive upgrades at LAX to compete there and SNA/ONT are nonstarters given how far away they are.
#10
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 123
It is a shame that the application for FIS was denied but closing down ops in LGB because of that would just be sour grapes. LGB is an outstanding facility post-renovation and an excellent west-coast hub for B6.
Honestly if B6 slows or stops servicing LGB then I will probably switch airlines. They would need massive upgrades at LAX to compete there and SNA/ONT are nonstarters given how far away they are.
Honestly if B6 slows or stops servicing LGB then I will probably switch airlines. They would need massive upgrades at LAX to compete there and SNA/ONT are nonstarters given how far away they are.
#11
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
B6 cannot really grow more at LGB so the only way to increase the value of the operation is to get higher yielding fares. That's where the Mexico service was going to play a role. Without that the company is flying a bunch of intra-California stuff mostly at fares too low to be a good use of resources.
I love the terminal there and hope JetBlue comes up with a way to make it work. But without the ability to expand or to grow yields it is hard to see what the future is.
I love the terminal there and hope JetBlue comes up with a way to make it work. But without the ability to expand or to grow yields it is hard to see what the future is.
#12
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: GE
Posts: 247
At some point the convenience & comfort factor tilts back to LAX, which is unfortunate as LAX is neither.
I admit, it totally depends on where you are and how far you're willing to drive. Since we're talking Mexico, I know plenty of people who will drive all the way to TIJ to fly Volaris domestic.
Originally Posted by sbm12
B6 cannot really grow more at LGB so the only way to increase the value of the operation is to get higher yielding fares. That's where the Mexico service was going to play a role. Without that the company is flying a bunch of intra-California stuff mostly at fares too low to be a good use of resources.
I love the terminal there and hope JetBlue comes up with a way to make it work. But without the ability to expand or to grow yields it is hard to see what the future is.
I love the terminal there and hope JetBlue comes up with a way to make it work. But without the ability to expand or to grow yields it is hard to see what the future is.
Don't get me wrong, I like the regional destinations too, but given the limited number of takeoffs from LGB I'm surprised there's not more long-hauls. B6 used to go to ORD and IAD and AA to DFW. There's only one daily to BOS. Not even a whiff of a possibility of BNA (not wanting to challenge WN?).
I'm not familiar with the LGB noise restrictions but I was cautiously optimistic that eventual adoption of the A321neo could mean significant passenger volume growth @LGB (if not more routes) within the same noise envelope.
#13
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
I believe that's viable. But selling even more seats in the same low-yield markets seems unlikely to improve the economics of such sufficiently.
#14
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: UA1K
Posts: 4,044
Same here, anytime I need to go to the LA basin, it always makes so much more sense to fly into LGB given the low fares and the ease of the airport. How many airports are there in California when you can consistently arrive at the airport 30 minutes before your flight and go from curb to the gate in 2 minutes.
#15
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: SMF
Posts: 1,251
Sure, I've flown through each of these, but still maintain that LGB has the best and simplest passenger experience. Depending on where your gate is you can have quite a walk at SNA, and BUR needs an update. I'm also a sucker for boarding plans without a jet bridge, and while you do the same at BUR, you don't get the same fantastic views of the ramp that you do at LGB.