|
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 32522610)
In fairness no one is really a west coast airline other than AS and UA.
And DL is growing, but we'll have to see how it comes out of the current draw-down and where demand is. |
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 32524735)
WN would likely argue that, particularly its intra-California network. ;)
And DL is growing, but we'll have to see how it comes out of the current draw-down and where demand is. |
Rumor has it... Delta wants to grow. SLC was already mainline for some frequencies (pre-COVID). I could see SEA and MSP easily if they get enough slots. But I heard they are evaluating JFK. If they start JFK-LGB, I could easily see a lot of the former B6 flyers jumping ship (and definitely the employees, too).
-J. |
Originally Posted by GW McLintock
(Post 32525044)
Rumor has it... Delta wants to grow. SLC was already mainline for some frequencies (pre-COVID). I could see SEA and MSP easily if they get enough slots. But I heard they are evaluating JFK. If they start JFK-LGB, I could easily see a lot of the former B6 flyers jumping ship (and definitely the employees, too).
-J. |
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 32525056)
If that were to happen, what equipment? Just move a 75E over from LAX?
-J. |
Originally Posted by GW McLintock
(Post 32525087)
For JFK? I doubt it would be a D1-equipped aircraft, as LGB is definitely not a premium destination. I could see an A319 or even an A220 doing it pretty successfully. I think a 73G would have been perfect given its higher performance, but that requires a 73G being made available at JFK.
-J. |
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 32525126)
It would be difficult to imagine people used to flying B6 Y opting to fly in Y on a DL 737.
We should also keep in mind that the average customer doesn't know (or care about) the difference between an Airbus and an Antonov, let alone a Boeing. If it has wings and flies through the air, they'll take it. -J. |
Originally Posted by GW McLintock
(Post 32525150)
With PTVs and power outlets, it isn't terribly different. JFK-LGB was an old-school 150Y A320 as late as earlier this year. Even in August it will once again be on the "old ghetto plane" too, at least on some dates.
We should also keep in mind that the average customer doesn't know (or care about) the difference between an Airbus and an Antonov, let alone a Boeing. If it has wings and flies through the air, they'll take it. -J. |
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 32525181)
Can’t agree there. Y on DL’s 737s (even F on DL’s 737s) is horrible. The 150Y B6 A320 is a far better ride in Y or Y+ with pitch greatly exceeding DL’s offering in both cabins. In fact the pitch in the exit row is better than DL’s F pitch. Not to mention the Airbus Y seats are wider than on the 737.
|
Originally Posted by GW McLintock
(Post 32525044)
Rumor has it... Delta wants to grow. SLC was already mainline for some frequencies (pre-COVID). I could see SEA and MSP easily if they get enough slots. But I heard they are evaluating JFK. If they start JFK-LGB, I could easily see a lot of the former B6 flyers jumping ship (and definitely the employees, too).
-J. |
Originally Posted by bgasser
(Post 32525267)
I fly the JFK-LGB route often on the "ghetto planes". The pitch is great, but the in flight entertainment systems are sometimes not working due to wear/tear and age. The Airbus's on JFK-LAX with their available walk up snacks /beverages is nice, but LAX is a pain compared to LGB.
|
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 32525181)
Can’t agree there. Y on DL’s 737s (even F on DL’s 737s) is horrible. The 150Y B6 A320 is a far better ride in Y or Y+ with pitch greatly exceeding DL’s offering in both cabins. In fact the pitch in the exit row is better than DL’s F pitch. Not to mention the Airbus Y seats are wider than on the 737.
Originally Posted by bgasser
(Post 32525267)
I fly the JFK-LGB route often on the "ghetto planes". The pitch is great, but the in flight entertainment systems are sometimes not working due to wear/tear and age. The Airbus's on JFK-LAX with their available walk up snacks /beverages is nice, but LAX is a pain compared to LGB.
-J. |
Originally Posted by tphuang
(Post 32525531)
I cannot think of a better way for DL to blow money. If they do it, great for JetBlue. You really have to see performance on SLC-LGB vs other LA area airport to see why LGB is so undesirable. There is a reason JetBlue isn't even keeping JFK-LGB. Both ONT/BUR were performing better by last summer.
For the longest time, JetBlue had LGB-SLC 3x daily. I'm not sure what Delta had at their peak, but I do know they started sending an Airbus last year. With the drop in competition, I could see them easily picking up the slack given there is O&D traffic in addition to connecting passengers. -J. |
Originally Posted by GW McLintock
(Post 32526237)
I'm not especially tall so the pitch is fine for me on either aircraft. The one-inch wider seat does not really make much of a difference for me. I would gladly trade those for a power outlet on a six-hour flight. Back on the topic, I think it's much more likely Delta would use an A319 anyway. I think even a 737-800 has too much capacity.
|
Originally Posted by GW McLintock
(Post 32526249)
Sure, on the O&D side of things. But there are plenty of people around the country in smaller cities, and even around the world, who want to visit Disneyland, and don't want to go to LAX. A lot of their traffic will come from connections that simply don't exist at JetBlue.
For the longest time, JetBlue had LGB-SLC 3x daily. I'm not sure what Delta had at their peak, but I do know they started sending an Airbus last year. With the drop in competition, I could see them easily picking up the slack given there is O&D traffic in addition to connecting passengers. -J. Interesting enough, the 2 JFK-LGB got moved to EWR-LAX. Now, they are at 5x daily on EWR-LAX. |
Well, I guess the idea of the Delta 73G is out the window... if they were go to JFK, I'd expect an A319. Still think the 320/738 are too big.
In other news... JetBlue Leaves a Bad Situation in Long Beach for Something Worse at LAX. Some interesting points, especially with the Asia connections (or lack thereof) and the Reno flight. -J. |
Originally Posted by GW McLintock
(Post 32532218)
Well, I guess the idea of the Delta 73G is out the window... if they were go to JFK, I'd expect an A319. Still think the 320/738 are too big.
|
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 32532357)
I think it would be pretty unlikely for DL to start LGB at this point.
|
Im not the only one that sees B6 at LAX a bad situation. Desperate move that has trouble written all over it.
Highlights from the article, all points which I mentioned a few days ago. a switch of those same short-haul flights up the road to ultra-competitive Los Angeles International (LAX). Apparently JetBlue just can’t live without a West Coast strategy, even if it’s a bad one. The same can’t be said for this short-haul network. In Long Beach, JetBlue found it was basically irrevelant for intra-west flying except to a small group of people who preferred the airport’s convenience over better frequency elsewhere. Fares were low, and JetBlue had no chance of growing into a significant operation. There were plenty of reasons to leave Long Beach, but very few reasons to go to LAX. I also said this... Keep in mind, however, that many of the other airlines have First Class so that will bump the fare up a bit for them. Also, keep in mind that JetBlue often will be the last choice in most of these markets with a lack of frequency and loyalty in the area. That means JetBlue is going to have to discount to fill those airplanes. It was suggested in a Twitter conversation that JetBlue might be trying to benefit from partner connections at LAX that didn’t exist in Long Beach. That would be nice icing on the cake… if there was a cake under that icing and if the times worked. They don’t. The two most popular routes for connections would probably be San Francisco and Las Vegas. Those depart from LAX at 6am and 755am in the morning and 537pm and 624pm in the evening, respectively. Those are not going to work for Asian connections. The overall idea seems to be that JetBlue can operate as a spill carrier in the market so that a) it can say it has a West Coast strategy and b) it can preserve jobs in the region. Scott says the airline expects to stimulate the market with lower fares, and “there’s plenty of demand to go around.” That may be true, but at what fare exactly? Competition is fierce. The LEAST competitive market is Reno which still has three airlines flying. Even there, American, Southwest, and United usually combine to fly more than 10 flights a day. JetBlue will have just one that operates in the middle of the morning. Even if American were to pull back domestically, this still has a lot of flights. It seems to me that what really pushed this decision over the finish line is the employee issue. Scott admitted that “played in a big way in this decision… making sure we had a plan for our crewmembers.” That’s admirable in one sense, but employees are already feeling the pain right now. It seems like the time is right to build the airline for the future. That’s what employees really want; something sustainable. Working in Long Beach the last few years has been gutwrenching as rumor after rumor of the imminent demise had beaten down morale. Nobody wants to do that again. https://crankyflier.com/2020/07/13/j...-worse-at-lax/ |
Originally Posted by DLSuites
(Post 32533059)
Im not the only one that sees B6 at LAX a bad situation. Desperate move that has trouble written all over it.
Highlights from the article, all points which I mentioned a few days ago. I said this same exact thing.. I also said this... Complete article here https://crankyflier.com/2020/07/13/j...-worse-at-lax/ If JetBlue didn't make a move here, they would've been in risk of getting kicked to MSC, which would've been a disaster for their mint franchise. So yes, losing a few dollars on 9 short haul flights to support your network is a smart idea. DL isn't doing JFK-LGB. Just not happening. LGB would be lucky if DL flies to more than SLC after this. |
Originally Posted by tphuang
(Post 32533149)
If JetBlue didn't make a move here, they would've been in risk of getting kicked to MSC, which would've been a disaster for their mint franchise.
|
Originally Posted by tphuang
(Post 32533149)
Cranky has no idea what he is talking about here and neither do you. JetBlue has been desperate to get gates at LAX for a long time. They were bidding against AS for up to $2.6 billion for VX just to get additional gates at LAX and SFO. Now, they get it for essentially just the cost of lease for those gates.
Also telling is that even with more LAX gates there is minimal discussion of adding service within the region as opposed to longer VFR markets that can be served efficiently from LAX. |
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 32533162)
Not sure I follow why that would be a disaster for Mint...
https://beatofhawaii.com/trouble-bre...iian-airlines/
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 32533447)
JetBlue's motivation in the VX deal was about much more than just getting some gates. It was about establishing a nationwide network instead of an east coast network that occasionally few out west. That was not an expansion the company could undertake with organic growth levels.
Also telling is that even with more LAX gates there is minimal discussion of adding service within the region as opposed to longer VFR markets that can be served efficiently from LAX. Sure, if they were to stay as an airline only focused on BOS and leisure market in NYC, then they can keep building up Boston while cutting off all short haul from west coast. Then Cranky would be right in saying this doesn't make sense. But they seem to have more ambitions right now. They should be looking to capture more of that top corporate dollars that have eluded them so far even in Northeast. In order to that, they need to fly to more places domestically, fly to Europe and have greater presence in west coast (since many firms have large offices on both coasts). So they need more presence in LAX and SFO. So I do fully expect them to have more of a west coast operation than what they have moved over so far. I did a hypothetical route network for that 70 flight schedule and they would need to run at least 20 flights on the west coast to get to that total. I don't think it's a big sacrifice to lose some money on west coast market in order to boost their mint transcon performance and help them capture more of the top corporate dollars. |
Originally Posted by tphuang
(Post 32533950)
HA actually is suing LAWA about getting forced to MSC. Not a great situation for domestic airline to be at MSC.
https://beatofhawaii.com/trouble-bre...iian-airlines/ 1) lack of domestic luggage processing 2) lack of co-location with B6 (easy to fix if issue number 1 can be resolved) What is preventing domestic luggage from being processed at TBIT? |
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 32533447)
JetBlue's motivation in the VX deal was about much more than just getting some gates. It was about establishing a nationwide network instead of an east coast network that occasionally few out west. That was not an expansion the company could undertake with organic growth levels.
Also telling is that even with more LAX gates there is minimal discussion of adding service within the region as opposed to longer VFR markets that can be served efficiently from LAX. |
Originally Posted by diburning
(Post 32539726)
I think the main obstacle to Jetblue expanding on the west coast is the lack of a west coast maintenance facility which precludes them from having a sizeable west coast based fleet. Acquiring VX would have added a west coast fleet with their maintenance contracts (VX contracted with United for maintenance on their A319s and A320s at SFO)
LAX used to have an operational Mint spare part-time. It would arrive in the morning from the east coast, hang out all day, and do one of the redeyes out. I don't know if this is still the case. I imagine finding a maintenance hangar at LAX would be easier, or it could be shared with another airline (looking at AA, who also has IAE-powered Airbuses). -J. |
I know AA’s new partnerships mostly benefit AS on the west coast and B6 in the east coast, but it seems like the new AA/B6 codeshare agreements puts the LAX move in a new light.
While I personally still don’t like the O/D passenger experience at LAX, it seems like this partnership might allow for new passenger feeds on connecting flights (and/or B6 flights might be an appealing option for some AA folks) |
Originally Posted by tphuang
(Post 32533950)
HA actually is suing LAWA about getting forced to MSC. Not a great situation for domestic airline to be at MSC.
https://beatofhawaii.com/trouble-bre...iian-airlines/ And you don't think they are looking for that transition now? A lot of resources being poured into EWR to grab as many gates there as possible. There is a ton of slots becoming available at JFK, so there is finally room for JetBlue to transition into more than just a leisure carrier in NYC. To do that, they finally added important missing links in DFW, MSP and DTW. They will be flying to Europe next summer based on their most recent comment. This is a network re-alignment to expand their relevance to other regions. At minimum, they will be relevant to more people in NY and NJ area. Sure, if they were to stay as an airline only focused on BOS and leisure market in NYC, then they can keep building up Boston while cutting off all short haul from west coast. Then Cranky would be right in saying this doesn't make sense. But they seem to have more ambitions right now. They should be looking to capture more of that top corporate dollars that have eluded them so far even in Northeast. In order to that, they need to fly to more places domestically, fly to Europe and have greater presence in west coast (since many firms have large offices on both coasts). So they need more presence in LAX and SFO. So I do fully expect them to have more of a west coast operation than what they have moved over so far. I did a hypothetical route network for that 70 flight schedule and they would need to run at least 20 flights on the west coast to get to that total. I don't think it's a big sacrifice to lose some money on west coast market in order to boost their mint transcon performance and help them capture more of the top corporate dollars. |
Originally Posted by tphuang
(Post 32533950)
HA actually is suing LAWA about getting forced to MSC. Not a great situation for domestic airline to be at MSC.
https://beatofhawaii.com/trouble-bre...iian-airlines/ |
Originally Posted by bgasser
(Post 32540004)
B6 doesn't even have a lounge at T5 at JFK. They are not going to compete for major corporate customers who need an entire route map filled in with frequency.
|
Originally Posted by tphuang
(Post 32543792)
JetBlue is changing. As it moves up the value chain, it will need to figure out how to continue to gain more corporate customers.
|
Originally Posted by bgasser
(Post 32544159)
WN has figured out how to become the most profitable US airline without catering to corporate customers. B6 seems stuck in a weird spot, offering Mint but not having lounges. Its route network from JFK offers a lot of service to CA, Caribbean and FL, but not much frequency to the Midwest (CLE, CMH...) or TX. Hard for me to see the vision they have for themselves over the next 10 years.
|
Originally Posted by bgasser
(Post 32540004)
B6 doesn't even have a lounge at T5 at JFK. They are not going to compete for major corporate customers who need an entire route map filled in with frequency.
|
Originally Posted by bgasser
(Post 32544159)
WN has figured out how to become the most profitable US airline without catering to corporate customers. B6 seems stuck in a weird spot, offering Mint but not having lounges. Its route network from JFK offers a lot of service to CA, Caribbean and FL, but not much frequency to the Midwest (CLE, CMH...) or TX. Hard for me to see the vision they have for themselves over the next 10 years.
JetBlue right now is looking more and more like a legacy carrier without a national network. The TATL flying + additional slots and other benefits from relationship with AA is going to help it attract the top corporate dollars in firms with large northeast offices that have eluded them so far. At a particular point, there will be more and more request for lounge. And JetBlue will have to decide whether or not it's worth the cost. I would say when they do the JFK terminal expansion, it's a perfect time to add one for mint customers. We will see. |
Originally Posted by cmd320
(Post 32544164)
WN has always been an airline I’ve never understood. Then again it’s an airline dedicated to those who don’t really fly very much.
|
there was actually an article on TPG yesterday as LGB base closed and LAX base opened.
https://thepointsguy.com/news/jetblu...opflights-lgb/ "“For us, LAX is the new world and we’re burning our ships,” Laurence told TPGin an interview on Sept. 30." JetBlue is fully committed to LAX |
Such a shame. That said LGB treated JetBlue like .... and I would have left too. Wonder how the City of Long Beach will fund their public library now that they won't get as many curfew fines. Hope Southwest :rolleyes: enjoys the terminal that JetBlue paid for.
-J. |
Originally Posted by GW McLintock
(Post 32732181)
Such a shame. That said LGB treated JetBlue like .... and I would have left too. Wonder how the City of Long Beach will fund their public library now that they won't get as many curfew fines. Hope Southwest :rolleyes: enjoys the terminal that JetBlue paid for.
-J. If B6 could add JFK to SNA, that would make me very happy. SNA seems to have a larger catchment area for passengers than ONT or BUR which will offer B6 transcons again planned for April. I understand SNA hasa short runway, but there should be a way to make it work. |
Originally Posted by bgasser
(Post 32736266)
Not sure how Southwest plans to make LGB work, where B6 could not. I understand that LGB did not want to add customs and immigration, but as a frequent flyer from JFK to LGB to work in Irvine and Laguna Beach, it is a great airport. I could land, grab a rental car, and be on the 405 in 20 minutes, There is no way to do that at LAX.
|
Originally Posted by bgasser
(Post 32736266)
Not sure how Southwest plans to make LGB work, where B6 could not. I understand that LGB did not want to add customs and immigration, but as a frequent flyer from JFK to LGB to work in Irvine and Laguna Beach, it is a great airport. I could land, grab a rental car, and be on the 405 in 20 minutes, There is no way to do that at LAX.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:00 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.