Any chance that JetBlue will fly to Canada?
Dec 19, 2002, 11:32 pm
#2
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 423
I don't know much about this, but I doubt they will. They would have a very difficult time keeping their fares low once they need to charge the taxes for cross-border flights. More importantly, I believe that a big part of JetBlue's success can be attributed to favorable conditions arranged for them by NY State polititians who wanted relief for upstate travellers (including themselves!) Because of this they received very favorable terms from JFK. The siituation in Canada would likely be exactly the opposite! It's likely the CDN gov't would be more interested in protecting AC (and their Canadian employees, and their Canadian tax revenuest, etc)
Dec 20, 2002, 6:54 am
#3
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: CHS
Posts: 2,246
Courtesy of Analise here's the list (directly from JetBlue) of possible expansion cities over the next 4 years:
Atlanta; Boston; Canton/Akron; Charleston, SC; Charleston, WV; Charlotte; Chicago; Cincinnati; Cleveland; Columbia, SC; Columbus, OH; Dallas/Fort Worth; Dayton; Flint, MI; Grand Rapids, MI; Greensboro, NC;
Greenville/Spartanburg; Houston; Indianapolis; Jacksonville, FL; Las Vegas, NV; Louisville; Memphis; Milwaukee; Minneapolis/St Paul; Nashville; Norfolk; Phoenix; Pittsburgh; Portland, ME; Portland, OR; Raleigh/Durham; Richmond; Sacramento; and Savannah.
...no Canadian cities
Atlanta; Boston; Canton/Akron; Charleston, SC; Charleston, WV; Charlotte; Chicago; Cincinnati; Cleveland; Columbia, SC; Columbus, OH; Dallas/Fort Worth; Dayton; Flint, MI; Grand Rapids, MI; Greensboro, NC;
Greenville/Spartanburg; Houston; Indianapolis; Jacksonville, FL; Las Vegas, NV; Louisville; Memphis; Milwaukee; Minneapolis/St Paul; Nashville; Norfolk; Phoenix; Pittsburgh; Portland, ME; Portland, OR; Raleigh/Durham; Richmond; Sacramento; and Savannah.
...no Canadian cities
Dec 20, 2002, 11:53 am
#5
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 1,439
More than just the taxes, clearing customs, immigration, etc., would mean that the quick turnaround times that are a key part of B6's business model will be impossible.
Further, for most of the major destinations, there is already ample competition and resonable fares from NYC or LA. Less competitive destinations like Québec, Halifax, or Edmonton, don't really have the volumes to be worthwhile.
Further, for most of the major destinations, there is already ample competition and resonable fares from NYC or LA. Less competitive destinations like Québec, Halifax, or Edmonton, don't really have the volumes to be worthwhile.
Dec 21, 2002, 11:37 pm
#6
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 423
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Paulo:
More than just the taxes, clearing customs, immigration, etc., would mean that the quick turnaround times that are a key part of B6's business model will be impossible.</font>
More than just the taxes, clearing customs, immigration, etc., would mean that the quick turnaround times that are a key part of B6's business model will be impossible.</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Further, for most of the major destinations, there is already ample competition and resonable fares from NYC or LA. Less competitive destinations like Québec, Halifax, or Edmonton, don't really have the volumes to be worthwhile.</font>
Further, for most of the major destinations, there is already ample competition and resonable fares from NYC or LA. Less competitive destinations like Québec, Halifax, or Edmonton, don't really have the volumes to be worthwhile.</font>
[This message has been edited by flaco (edited 12-21-2002).]
