FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   JetBlue | TrueBlue (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/jetblue-trueblue-492/)
-   -   LAX--New focus city (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/jetblue-trueblue/2021288-lax-new-focus-city.html)

sbm12 Jul 9, 20 8:36 pm


Originally Posted by tphuang (Post 32520694)
Wait, was that last part aim at me?

The "you've been warned" bit? That is required by FT rules and I've used the same phrase (slightly deviating from the suggested wording) on countless posts. It has nothing to do with you.

JetBlue remains on the waiting list for slots at SNA but, much like LGB, they are limited and the locals don't want any more on the market. Also, it is sufficiently far south that it becomes a very different catchment area. JetBlue has been successful at LAX. The long-haul routes are profitable, far more than anything at LGB was. Growing into the short-haul market there with many routes highly competitive might not work as well, but LGB was definitely not working. So, much like the less traditional route map adjustments recently announced, the company is going to try something different and see if it works. If they can even tread water at LAX through this mess and come out the other end vaguely stable the opportunities to add international VFR traffic and Mint to Hawaii could bring massive upside. But that's probably 3 years away still.


Originally Posted by bpe (Post 32520718)
How were fares and yields from LGB?

Horrid for the business, great for passengers.

GW McLintock Jul 9, 20 9:32 pm


Originally Posted by bpe (Post 32520718)
How were fares and yields from LGB? If they can get better fares from LAX, especially on transcon flights, then it's probably a win for JetBlue in the medium to long term. No longer having to worry about the curfew is a bonus, although it's not like they were violating the curfew just for the fun of it, and the low slot utilization suggests low yields, as it was better for them to prevent someone else from adding a flight rather than adding one themselves.

What will be more telling is if Southwest adds flights (if they see that there is money in LGB) or if they pull back (if they were just competing with JetBlue).

Oh for sure LAX will give better yields. LGB was hemorrhaging money. So you are right in that JetBlue is the winner here, for now.

The thing is, IMO of course, if passengers have to go to LAX, there's no guarantee they will fly JetBlue, especially if another carrier is cheaper or has a better schedule. Outside of COVID times, AA and DL also had a small complimentary meal in Y (on JFK and I imagine some other transcons) which is a step up from B6 no matter how you spin it (OTOH, B6 has the free WiFi, though with T-Mobile you get at least some functionality with Gogo). Basically, if I have to go to LAX, I really have no reason to take JetBlue unless I'm in Mint, I'm connecting, or I'm Mosaic. If you have Priority Pass, you have Even More reason to take AS or DL. When push comes to shove, ceteris paribus, I just don't see that many people being willing to pay extra or sacrifice a better schedule just for The JetBlue Experience.

-J.

Loose Cannon Jul 9, 20 11:11 pm


Originally Posted by uclacolumbiaunc (Post 32520537)
Why not move to SNA if the main reasons they left LGB are because of curfew restriction and lack of international processing facility?

Going into LAX when there are already crowded with major airlines is a bone-head move, IMO. Plus traveler will complain the increasing car traffic.

If I'm not mistaken SNA also has a curfew.

GW McLintock Jul 9, 20 11:17 pm

SNA's longest runway is just over half the size of LGB's longest at 5,701 feet. The A320 can't do too much with that.

-J.

bpe Jul 9, 20 11:49 pm


Originally Posted by GW McLintock (Post 32520800)
Oh for sure LAX will give better yields. LGB was hemorrhaging money. So you are right in that JetBlue is the winner here, for now.

The thing is, IMO of course, if passengers have to go to LAX, there's no guarantee they will fly JetBlue, especially if another carrier is cheaper or has a better schedule. Outside of COVID times, AA and DL also had a small complimentary meal in Y (on JFK and I imagine some other transcons) which is a step up from B6 no matter how you spin it (OTOH, B6 has the free WiFi, though with T-Mobile you get at least some functionality with Gogo). Basically, if I have to go to LAX, I really have no reason to take JetBlue unless I'm in Mint, I'm connecting, or I'm Mosaic. If you have Priority Pass, you have Even More reason to take AS or DL. When push comes to shove, ceteris paribus, I just don't see that many people being willing to pay extra or sacrifice a better schedule just for The JetBlue Experience.

-J.

People didn't seem to be willing to pay a premium for the The JetBlue Experience from LGB.

So many JetBlue's network is to/from other large primary airports with competition (JFK, BOS, SFO, current flights at LAX), so they should be used to dealing with that competition already, and many potential LGB passengers would also search for flights from LAX anyway given how close the two airports are.

N830MH Jul 10, 20 1:07 am

I was hoping LAX-PHX/ATL/SJD/HNL/OGG/KOA/LIH/CUN and else. They would like to bring more nonstop flight. If they have gate space available.

As for JetBlue, they won't be move to MSC. They will stay at entire T5. AA will shrinks the flights. They will free up the gates space.

Loose Cannon Jul 10, 20 1:33 am

So long Jet Blue. Jet Blue had the best in cabin product for economy class at least for the USA and Canada, in my opinion. Unfortunately Jet Blue charges 80$USD to check two bags, whereas you get to check two bags free of charge on Southwest. I hope Southwest gets the lion's share of the soon to be opened slots at LGB.

GW McLintock Jul 10, 20 9:14 am


Originally Posted by bpe (Post 32520950)
People didn't seem to be willing to pay a premium for the The JetBlue Experience from LGB.

So many JetBlue's network is to/from other large primary airports with competition (JFK, BOS, SFO, current flights at LAX), so they should be used to dealing with that competition already, and many potential LGB passengers would also search for flights from LAX anyway given how close the two airports are.

IME, a lot of people flew JetBlue because they did not want to deal with the cluster.... known as LAX. Allow me to rephrase... now that they have no choice in airport, they are free agents when it comes to airline (i.e., they are no longer "hub captive" in a sense).

-J.

cmd320 Jul 10, 20 9:48 am


Originally Posted by buckeyefanflyer (Post 32520571)
Dumb move. LAX to congested people and air traffic. With the virus need to spread people out create more hubs and this moves goes in the wrong direction.

I actually think this is a pretty good move. LGB was pretty restricted when it comes to expansion potential. Couple that with the recent news that AA is basically giving up at LAX and it makes sense.

tphuang Jul 10, 20 12:50 pm

I don't know necessarily how many people they are losing out by leaving LGB, but their performances there were horrendous. In the perfect world, LGB would've allowed E90 to use commuter slots, more slots available earlier and FIS setup sooner. If that had happened, JetBlue could've had its own airport in LA area. But none of that happened. They were stuck operating limited schedule with the few slots they had and unable to offer International flights that they wanted. It makes very little sense for an airline the size of JetBlue to do a split focus city operation of 20 flight each. Consolidating at LAX will allow them to finally do international flights, more connections from mint and more flexible scheduling for those red-eye transcons they love to do.

They are basically taking advantage of AA downsizing in LAX. It sounds like they only got 1 additional gate in addition to the CUTE gates they already have access to. That should be enough to operate the 30 to 40 flights they are like to run over the next year or so. Long term, I think they must have some confidence they will be able to get more gates. The only other airports where they announced focus city target size were BOS (200) and FLL(140). In both those cases, they signed deals for more gates after they made those announcements. So I think they must be in some advanced dialog with LAWA to getting additional gates as long as they can meet certain usage requirements and pay for the work LAWA needs to do. We will see. AA had previously planned to spend $1.6 billion to get all of T4 and 5. Given their current cash crunch, I don't think they will have money for this. That's probably why JetBlue is able to stick around in T-5.

beyondhere Jul 10, 20 1:30 pm


Originally Posted by buckeyefanflyer (Post 32520571)
Dumb move. LAX to congested people and air traffic. With the virus need to spread people out create more hubs and this moves goes in the wrong direction.

I believe it is done for long term strategic purpose, with assumption Covid will eventually die down. It makes sense to exit LGB and it has a presence already at LAX.

beyondhere Jul 10, 20 3:21 pm


Originally Posted by GW McLintock (Post 32520800)
Oh for sure LAX will give better yields. LGB was hemorrhaging money. So you are right in that JetBlue is the winner here, for now.

The thing is, IMO of course, if passengers have to go to LAX, there's no guarantee they will fly JetBlue, especially if another carrier is cheaper or has a better schedule. Outside of COVID times, AA and DL also had a small complimentary meal in Y (on JFK and I imagine some other transcons) which is a step up from B6 no matter how you spin it (OTOH, B6 has the free WiFi, though with T-Mobile you get at least some functionality with Gogo). Basically, if I have to go to LAX, I really have no reason to take JetBlue unless I'm in Mint, I'm connecting, or I'm Mosaic. If you have Priority Pass, you have Even More reason to take AS or DL. When push comes to shove, ceteris paribus, I just don't see that many people being willing to pay extra or sacrifice a better schedule just for The JetBlue Experience.

-J.

Maybe it will end up with a niche in LAX. For some reason, I see it attempting LAX-PIT and LAX-CLE, which have had nonstop carriers or might still but on a few carriers and these markets maybe more like LAX-BUF in market size, over LAX-IAD or BWI, and LAX-ATL, even though the latter are larger markets.

sbm12 Jul 10, 20 4:33 pm


Originally Posted by beyondhere (Post 32522415)
Maybe it will end up with a niche in LAX. For some reason, I see it attempting LAX-PIT and LAX-CLE, which have had nonstop carriers or might still but on a few carriers and these markets maybe more like LAX-BUF in market size, over LAX-IAD or BWI, and LAX-ATL, even though the latter are larger markets.

Remember that the BUF market, in normal times, carried a lot of Canadians that crossed the border for cheaper fares. WAS/ATL would be defended vigorously by incumbents.


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 32521646)
I actually think this is a pretty good move. LGB was pretty restricted when it comes to expansion potential. Couple that with the recent news that AA is basically giving up at LAX and it makes sense.

AA is closing some international routes at LAX. It is less clear how much the domestic traffic will scale back, though certainly some of the domestic depends on the international feed. But JetBlue is still a #7 player at best in LAX by size. That's not great, but at least the Mint flights were making money, unlike pretty much everything at LGB.

JetBlue isn't a west coast airline. And ramping up to compete as one would've distracted massively from the areas where the company was successful in the east. Trying to make LGB successful wasn't going to work and the company wants to keep some shorthaul flying out west, hopefully to add Hawaii and some Central America later. This is how it is going to get there, or at least how it is going to try to get there.

cmd320 Jul 10, 20 5:15 pm


Originally Posted by sbm12 (Post 32522540)
AA is closing some international routes at LAX. It is less clear how much the domestic traffic will scale back, though certainly some of the domestic depends on the international feed. But JetBlue is still a #7 player at best in LAX by size. That's not great, but at least the Mint flights were making money, unlike pretty much everything at LGB.

For now. When AA starts slashing, they usually don't stop until they end up with flights to their hubs, LHR, and JFK. Just look at JFK now.


Originally Posted by sbm12 (Post 32522540)
JetBlue isn't a west coast airline. And ramping up to compete as one would've distracted massively from the areas where the company was successful in the east. Trying to make LGB successful wasn't going to work and the company wants to keep some shorthaul flying out west, hopefully to add Hawaii and some Central America later. This is how it is going to get there, or at least how it is going to try to get there.

In fairness no one is really a west coast airline other than AS and UA. Over the last three decades many have tried and all have failed for the most part (AA/QQ, US/PS, AA/OC, etc). The difference is B6 is an LCC which offers a better Y product than one would find at a legacy, and a better transcon J product than most of what is out there. Striking now while the legacies are in panic mode due to their typical short-sightedness could certainly work into B6's favor.

GW McLintock Jul 10, 20 5:38 pm


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 32522610)
In fairness no one is really a west coast airline other than AS and UA. Over the last three decades many have tried and all have failed for the most part (AA/QQ, US/PS, AA/OC, etc).

Delta might beg to differ, with their significant operations at LAX, SEA, and SLC. Let's not forget that they fly JFK-LAX with the Boeing 767 exclusively.

-J.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:50 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.