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)

cmd320 Jul 11, 20 10:29 pm


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.

It would be difficult to imagine people used to flying B6 Y opting to fly in Y on a DL 737.

GW McLintock Jul 11, 20 10:47 pm


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.

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.

cmd320 Jul 11, 20 11:13 pm


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.

Canít agree there. Y on DLís 737s (even F on DLís 737s) is horrible. The 150Y B6 A320 is a far better ride in Y or Y+ with pitch greatly exceeding DLís offering in both cabins. In fact the pitch in the exit row is better than DLís F pitch. Not to mention the Airbus Y seats are wider than on the 737.

bgasser Jul 12, 20 12:31 am


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 32525181)
Canít agree there. Y on DLís 737s (even F on DLís 737s) is horrible. The 150Y B6 A320 is a far better ride in Y or Y+ with pitch greatly exceeding DLís offering in both cabins. In fact the pitch in the exit row is better than DLís F pitch. Not to mention the Airbus Y seats are wider than on the 737.

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.

tphuang Jul 12, 20 4:49 am


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.

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.

ucdtim17 Jul 12, 20 8:51 am


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.

It was the same dynamic for me when I flew JFK-OAK/SFO. SFO has multiple frequencies on new planes that never needed fuel stops. OAK had one flight in a ghetto plane that couldnít make the full flight in winter. It didnít seem like a tenable situation, and it wasnít. Of course the loser route is going to underperform in those circumstances.

GW McLintock Jul 12, 20 12:37 pm


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 32525181)
Canít agree there. Y on DLís 737s (even F on DLís 737s) is horrible. The 150Y B6 A320 is a far better ride in Y or Y+ with pitch greatly exceeding DLís offering in both cabins. In fact the pitch in the exit row is better than DLís F pitch. Not to mention the Airbus Y seats are wider than on the 737.

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 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.

You really hit the nail on the head. It's a long flight to have inoperative IFE, or a broken reading light, or [insert cabin write-up here].

-J.

GW McLintock Jul 12, 20 12:42 pm


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.

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.

cmd320 Jul 12, 20 12:48 pm


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.

I suppose it comes down to preference. Personally, Iím not tall or wide, but I wonít fly Y on a legacy for more than 90 minutes. Give me 12D on the original A320 with the middle blocked any day and Iíd take it over domestic F in many cases on a non-meal flight.

tphuang Jul 12, 20 7:17 pm


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.

There really wasn't much connection existing out of LGB either. At some point, I think they will start flying out of SNA with A220s. That would be the best option.

Interesting enough, the 2 JFK-LGB got moved to EWR-LAX. Now, they are at 5x daily on EWR-LAX.

GW McLintock Jul 14, 20 9:01 pm

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.

cmd320 Jul 14, 20 10:28 pm


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.

I think it would be pretty unlikely for DL to start LGB at this point.

N830MH Jul 15, 20 12:18 am


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 32532357)
I think it would be pretty unlikely for DL to start LGB at this point.

You never know! I just don't think DL to start LGB anytime soon.

DLSuites Jul 15, 20 8:01 am

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 canít live without a West Coast strategy, even if itís a bad one.
I said this same exact thing..


The same canít 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 airportís 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 didnít exist in Long Beach. That would be nice icing on the cakeÖ if there was a cake under that icing and if the times worked. They donít. 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 ďthereís plenty of demand to go around.Ē 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 ďplayed in a big way in this decisionÖ making sure we had a plan for our crewmembers.Ē Thatís 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. Thatís 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.
Complete article here

https://crankyflier.com/2020/07/13/j...-worse-at-lax/

tphuang Jul 15, 20 8:38 am


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/

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.

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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:51 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.