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)

sfozrhfco Jul 9, 20 12:23 pm

LAX--New focus city
 
https://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...Strategy-Lands

"NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--JetBlue (NASDAQ: JBLU) today announced it will make Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) its primary base of operations in greater Los Angeles, advancing its focus city strategy and building relevance for the airline in one of the busiest markets in the world. To enable the shift, the airline will move service currently operated at Long Beach Airport (LGB) to LAX, along with its Long Beach crew and maintenance bases, beginning in October.

With support from Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), JetBlue plans to embark on a strategic expansion over the next five years with plans to reach roughly 70 flights per day by 2025. This will include multiple new markets, both domestic and international, some of which have never had nonstop service to and from LAX."

Great to see some growth on the West Coast and finally moving to an airport where they can actually grow.

wifiguru Jul 9, 20 12:31 pm

Yep, just got an email saying they are getting rid of LGB service. Wonder who's taking their old slots.
"https://static.cdn.responsys.net/i5/...ges/spacer.gif
Hello, wifiguru,

We hope you and your loved ones are safe and well, and we can't wait to see you on board again when the time is right. In the meantime, we want to give you a heads-up about some changes we are making to our route network in Southern California.

After careful consideration, as of 10/7/2020, we will be moving our scheduled Long Beach (LGB) flights to LAX*. We have proudly served LGB for many years, so no longer offering service has been a difficult decision.

However, our commitment to Southern California remains strong, and we are delighted that our LAX service will increase to 30+ flights daily, including both New York (JFK) and Newark in the New York City area, Boston, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, Austin, Buffalo, plus destinations in the West including San Francisco, Las Vegas, Seattle, Reno/Tahoe, Salt Lake City, and seasonal service to Bozeman. You'll also have more Mint service from LAX, with new service to Newark, as well as continuing to serve New York (JFK), Boston and Fort Lauderdale.

In addition to our increases at LAX, nonstop service will continue at Ontario (ONT), Burbank (BUR) and San Diego (SAN), as well as our seasonal service to Palm Springs (PSP).

As you're probably aware, our route network and the cities we serve are driven by customer demand, airport considerations, and scheduling needs, among other factors. We always strive to provide the best service and schedules for our customers, which requires constant re-evaluation on how best to serve you. We look forward to continuing to serve you at one of our Southern California area airports.

Thanks, as always, for being a valued TrueBlue member.

Here's to blue skies ahead,
"

tphuang Jul 9, 20 12:51 pm

I mean it was obvious that they were going to do this once legacies start shrinking at LAX. I'm still surprised they are getting enough gates at LAX to be able to grow to 70+ flights. We will see where that comes from. I had estimated they will grow LAX into a 50 flight station. This is beyond my expectations. The byproduct is that Florida will have to wait and BOS plans will slow down too.

In a couple of year, you will probably be able to finally fly JetBlue from Northeast to PVR/SJD via LAX.

GW McLintock Jul 9, 20 1:59 pm

This was a long time coming, we just didn't know the exact date. Overall it is good news. They will no longer be under the restrictive environment of LGB with regard to slot usage, curfews, and aircraft performance. On the other hand, the biggest losers here are passengers. I for one loved the convenience and simplicity of LGB, and this will make going to the Long Beach area a lot more difficult.

My heart goes out to the employees who work at the airport. I wish them the best of luck during this transition.

-J.

sbm12 Jul 9, 20 2:34 pm


Originally Posted by tphuang (Post 32519796)
In a couple of year, you will probably be able to finally fly JetBlue from Northeast to PVR/SJD via LAX.

The destinations tipped during the internal staff briefing were beyond Mexico, though the Mexican beach destinations remain possible, just not as likely. Too much competition on those routes anyways. And JetBlue seems to prefer VFR traffic over vacation where it can make the numbers work. A bit more consistent flow, I'd assume, and less price sensitive.

(Link to my story; you've been warned per FT rules)

ianmanka Jul 9, 20 2:55 pm

Perhaps their uptick in flights at LAX is a combination of additional gates becoming available at the TBIT mid-concourse and legacies drawing down service?

sbm12 Jul 9, 20 3:27 pm


Originally Posted by ianmanka (Post 32520146)
Perhaps their uptick in flights at LAX is a combination of additional gates becoming available at the TBIT mid-concourse and legacies drawing down service?

If it is tied to the mid-field concourse it will be because other airlines move out there, per the internal briefing this afternoon. JetBlue has no interest in moving out of T5 at this point.

uclacolumbiaunc Jul 9, 20 6:29 pm

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.

GW McLintock Jul 9, 20 6:35 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.

JetBlue does not fly to SNA, and WN would present enormous competition by scale. At LAX with AA downsizing there is an opportunity, not to mention they already have operations at LAX.

-J.

buckeyefanflyer Jul 9, 20 7:01 pm

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.

ACCDraw Jul 9, 20 7:40 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.


downinit Jul 9, 20 7:48 pm

This is 100% due to the NIMBY's in Long Beach who complained to city hall about how terrible it would be to open up a customs facility at LGB. It would have added jobs and revenue to the airport and city, and would not have had any impact to the number of flights or time of the flights. However, the squeaky wheel gets the grease...even though the wheel is usually squeaking because it is broken and in need of replacement.

GW McLintock Jul 9, 20 8:11 pm


Originally Posted by downinit (Post 32520642)
This is 100% due to the NIMBY's in Long Beach who complained to city hall about how terrible it would be to open up a customs facility at LGB. It would have added jobs and revenue to the airport and city, and would not have had any impact to the number of flights or time of the flights. However, the squeaky wheel gets the grease...even though the wheel is usually squeaking because it is broken and in need of replacement.

I say 90%. It was also at least 10% the city council who would not stand up for themselves and will now have to explain why their airport suddenly lost half its jobs and has no flights to anyplace meaningful. The entire thing is just a mess.

I do understand that JetBlue didn't exactly treat them well. They underutilized slots, blew the curfew (sometimes multiple times a day)... it was almost like a game of chicken. And now everyone loses.

-J.

tphuang Jul 9, 20 8:17 pm


Originally Posted by sbm12 (Post 32520098)
The destinations tipped during the internal staff briefing were beyond Mexico, though the Mexican beach destinations remain possible, just not as likely. Too much competition on those routes anyways. And JetBlue seems to prefer VFR traffic over vacation where it can make the numbers work. A bit more consistent flow, I'd assume, and less price sensitive.

(Link to my story; you've been warned per FT rules)

Wait, was that last part aim at me? I certainly did not need your post to guess pvr and sjd as where they will fly to. I wrote my post before I saw your story. That's for sure.

If that was aimed at me, you should apologize, because you are completely wrong.

bpe Jul 9, 20 8:34 pm


Originally Posted by GW McLintock (Post 32520685)
I do understand that JetBlue didn't exactly treat them well. They underutilized slots, blew the curfew (sometimes multiple times a day)... it was almost like a game of chicken. And now everyone loses.

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).

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.

hi55us Jul 10, 20 5:39 pm

Good decision by Jet Blue, but Jet Blue needs to add more secondary markets on the West Coast to be competitive. Alaska is teaming up with AA and joining OW, which means on a route like LAX-AUS/RNO/SLC/SEA, you're totally relying on O&D traffic, wheras the US3 can offer a routing like FAT-LAX-AUS, SAN-LAX-RNO, PHX-LAX-RNO.

On the East Coast Jet Blue has this advantage, being able to fly you say BUF-JFK-MCO or BTV-JFK-CHS. Having secondary cities on both ends would make their transcons and midcon routes significantly more successful and make LAX a true "focus city" that honestly it isn't given the current news of 6 Cities to be served out of LAX. You have Delta serving 13 west coast markets, United serving 24 west coast markets and AA/Alaska serving 19 west coast markets. The US3 will be able to pressure Jet Blue on price on a route like JFK-LAX, charging say $149 for Y while Jet Blue charges $189 and not lose their shirt because they're selling FAT-LAX-JFK tickets for $250.

N830MH Jul 10, 20 5:53 pm


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.

Yes, it is! LGB is a slot restricted. They don't like to flying after 10pm. Southwest will gets extra slots. They can bring more nonstop flight.

DLSuites Jul 10, 20 6:05 pm


Originally Posted by hi55us (Post 32522665)
Good decision by Jet Blue, but Jet Blue needs to add more secondary markets on the West Coast to be competitive.

Good decision? To go into a market that is oversaturated? And before folks chime in that AA, DL and AS are going to shrink and cough up gates to B6...its time to be realistic about matters. Or you can believe the hype that B6 is taking over JFK/BOS/LAX/FLL/MCO/PHL and I've got a bridge to sell you. B6 will have very limited success with LAX. Fact: the routes B6 will fly out of LAX are not impressive, are flown by everyone under the sun and will not impress the LAX constituents. The exception will be the MINT flights. They will absolutely do extremely well with that.

B6 would be better of trying to make inroads at SFO if they really want a presence on the west coast. They only have UA to compete with and I think there is enough of a San Fran market for JetBlue to co-exist with UA and to a lesser extent, AS. LAX, to much competition. I mean, who at B6 thinks of these things? They also should've made a play a SEA long before DL moved in. With the way B6 manages their future, I am afraid it doesnt look to bright, They always seem to be a few steps behind the competition. Think about it for a minute...In the not to distant past they could've been 2nd in charge at SEA, they could easily be 2nd in charge at SFO, but they choose LAX, a market that is beyond saturated with the flights they plan on running. Not. To. Smart.

cmd320 Jul 10, 20 6:43 pm


Originally Posted by GW McLintock (Post 32522663)
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.

They might, however they still don't have the depth of the networks AS and UA have on the west coast. I don't really consider SLC a west coast hub. People flying SAN-PDX for example aren't going to want to transfer in SLC under most circumstances.


Originally Posted by DLSuites (Post 32522705)
Good decision? To go into a market that is oversaturated? And before folks chime in that AA, DL and AS are going to shrink and cough up gates to B6...its time to be realistic about matters. Or you can believe the hype that B6 is taking over JFK/BOS/LAX/FLL/MCO/PHL and I've got a bridge to sell you.

AA already has begun to shrink LAX.


Originally Posted by DLSuites (Post 32522705)
Fact: the routes B6 will fly out of LAX are not impressive, are flown by everyone under the sun and will not impress the LAX constituents. The exception will be the MINT flights. They will absolutely do extremely well with that.

Can you reference this "fact" anywhere?


Originally Posted by DLSuites (Post 32522705)
B6 would be better of trying to make inroads at SFO if they really want a presence on the west coast. They only have UA to compete with and I think there is enough of a San Fran market for JetBlue to co-exist with UA and to a lesser extent, AS. LAX, to much competition. I mean, who at B6 thinks of these things? They also should've made a play a SEA long before DL moved in. With the way B6 manages their future, I am afraid it doesnt look to bright, They always seem to be a few steps behind the competition. Think about it for a minute...In the not to distant past they could've been 2nd in charge at SEA, they could easily be 2nd in charge at SFO, but they choose LAX, a market that is beyond saturated with the flights they plan on running. Not. To. Smart.

I disagree. SFO is too heavily UA centric for another airline to have any kind of sizable operation there. While other airlines such as AA, DL, and B6 have success on their transcon routes from SFO, that's about all that is supported in addition to routes to their hubs. Competitive cities that lack an established player are actually very beneficial to the LCC business model because LCCs can undercut legacies on price in most cases. LAX plays right into this and also is a major leisure destination.

tphuang Jul 10, 20 10:05 pm


Originally Posted by hi55us (Post 32522665)
Good decision by Jet Blue, but Jet Blue needs to add more secondary markets on the West Coast to be competitive. Alaska is teaming up with AA and joining OW, which means on a route like LAX-AUS/RNO/SLC/SEA, you're totally relying on O&D traffic, wheras the US3 can offer a routing like FAT-LAX-AUS, SAN-LAX-RNO, PHX-LAX-RNO.

On the East Coast Jet Blue has this advantage, being able to fly you say BUF-JFK-MCO or BTV-JFK-CHS. Having secondary cities on both ends would make their transcons and midcon routes significantly more successful and make LAX a true "focus city" that honestly it isn't given the current news of 6 Cities to be served out of LAX. You have Delta serving 13 west coast markets, United serving 24 west coast markets and AA/Alaska serving 19 west coast markets. The US3 will be able to pressure Jet Blue on price on a route like JFK-LAX, charging say $149 for Y while Jet Blue charges $189 and not lose their shirt because they're selling FAT-LAX-JFK tickets for $250.

Basically, you are saying that they should run more of a hub model in a place like LAX. That does go against the current JetBlue model. Although with their network consolidated in one place, they should be able to connect more than they have been.

I do have to correct you one thing. Having looked a connection data and done my own prorated analysis, I have found O&D fares on average to always be higher than connection fares. Connection does help an airline fill seats, which allow them to offer more frequencies and attract higher yielding close-in bookings.


Originally Posted by DLSuites (Post 32522705)
Good decision? To go into a market that is oversaturated? And before folks chime in that AA, DL and AS are going to shrink and cough up gates to B6...its time to be realistic about matters. Or you can believe the hype that B6 is taking over JFK/BOS/LAX/FLL/MCO/PHL and I've got a bridge to sell you. B6 will have very limited success with LAX. Fact: the routes B6 will fly out of LAX are not impressive, are flown by everyone under the sun and will not impress the LAX constituents. The exception will be the MINT flights. They will absolutely do extremely well with that.

B6 would be better of trying to make inroads at SFO if they really want a presence on the west coast. They only have UA to compete with and I think there is enough of a San Fran market for JetBlue to co-exist with UA and to a lesser extent, AS. LAX, to much competition. I mean, who at B6 thinks of these things? They also should've made a play a SEA long before DL moved in. With the way B6 manages their future, I am afraid it doesnt look to bright, They always seem to be a few steps behind the competition. Think about it for a minute...In the not to distant past they could've been 2nd in charge at SEA, they could easily be 2nd in charge at SFO, but they choose LAX, a market that is beyond saturated with the flights they plan on running. Not. To. Smart.

I get the sense that you don't quite understand what works for JetBlue. LAX has always been the west coast hub they wanted since mint became a success. And now they will have enough gate space thanks to legacy cutbacks. Again, we will have to see where the gate space comes from. If a lot of adds won't come until 2023, that might indicate they won't have the extra gate access until that time. Or it might just be due to the need to concentrate on East coast for the next 2 years.


Originally Posted by sbm12 (Post 32522540)
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.

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.

JetBlue will have more departure and higher ASM than NK after they consolidate at LAX. So they will be #6 in LAX. They have a chance to be #5 in revenue/ASM if they get to 70 flights a day. A220 will probably be used for long thin transcon like to BDL, PBI, HPN, JAX, CHS, RSW that currently have no competition of will have no competition. All of these markets should have similar level of demand to BUF.

N830MH Jul 11, 20 1:48 am


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 32522765)
AA already has begun to shrink LAX.

Yes, they will. They will shrinks LAX flight.

RWPrincess Jul 11, 20 10:45 am

As someone who spends a lot of money on JetBlue annually and has been Mosaic for several years now, this hurts from a passenger experience perspective. My clients and business needs were located within 30 miles of LGB and rarely was there traffic.I also had non-freeway alternatives if needed. Car rental was easy at LGB as was other ground transport. It was also cheaper to utilize ground transport at LGB due to the shorter distance. Last time I took an Uber at LAX, I had to wait almost 20 min just to travel from the parking lot to the freeway entrance because of congestion.

There is nothing good about LAX from a passenger experience perspective. You can't even do quality planespotting from T5 because of the lack of windows. If you don't believe me, run a twitter search for JetBlue LGB and look at all the negative comments from passengers.

I get the business reasons for this but I can't see this being successful long term. Casual passengers will just switch to other airlines at LGB and more frequent passengers now have a choice. I'm not a regular Mint customer so to me, JetBlue is now just like everyone else. I'm also someone that needs the SoCal-PDX route which JetBlue quietly removed with this announcement so that's more of a reason for me to seriously consider Delta. I would have said Southwest but they'll never offer nonstop service to LGB from cities I need on the East Coast.

nsx Jul 11, 20 11:09 am

The city of Long Beach won't have jetBlue to kick around anymore. Maybe the city will learn its lesson and treat its remaining airlines better. Nah, who am I kidding...

I hope jetBlue can inject some fare competition into Southwest's monopoly on LAX-OAK service. In recent years LAX-OAK fares have been higher than LAX-SJC and LAX-SFO fares. The latter routes had competitors, primarily Alaska Airlines.

GW McLintock Jul 11, 20 2:07 pm


Originally Posted by nsx (Post 32524003)
The city of Long Beach won't have jetBlue to kick around anymore. Maybe the city will learn its lesson and treat its remaining airlines better. Nah, who am I kidding...

I hope jetBlue can inject some fare competition into Southwest's monopoly on LAX-OAK service. In recent years LAX-OAK fares have been higher than LAX-SJC and LAX-SFO fares. The latter routes had competitors, primarily Alaska Airlines.

Bad news... JetBlue does not fly to Oakland anymore (from anywhere!).

I had heard that Southwest aggressively chased Mosaics in the OAK area after JetBlue pulled out. Rumor or not, they once again have this opportunity in Long Beach.

-J.

ucdtim17 Jul 11, 20 4:59 pm


Originally Posted by nsx (Post 32524003)
The city of Long Beach won't have jetBlue to kick around anymore. Maybe the city will learn its lesson and treat its remaining airlines better. Nah, who am I kidding...

I hope jetBlue can inject some fare competition into Southwest's monopoly on LAX-OAK service. In recent years LAX-OAK fares have been higher than LAX-SJC and LAX-SFO fares. The latter routes had competitors, primarily Alaska Airlines.

I doubt they’ll be back in OAK anytime soon. AS or UA probably would have been candidates to try LAX-OAK in the alternate non-pandemic timeline, but now it’ll probably just be WN (and NK) for the foreseeable future.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:37 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.