B6 Debate: 3rd aircraft type for jetBlue?
 

Lets have a debate on if jetBlue should have a 3rd aircraft type.

Fact 1:
When jetBlue first started, it was a pretty safe bet that jetBlue will only operate A320s. The decision of purchasing E190s was pretty much unexpected.

Fact 2:
LGB, no doubt, is one of the more sucessful operation for jetBlue, however, it is pretty clear that the slot control is pretty much set and safe to say that it will not change in the future, especially since they can't even get a expanded terminal off the ground. The only way they can expand at LGB is to increase capacity.

Fact 3:
jetBlue has set a trend by going against the trend in the airline industry. They pulled off many things that were once thought to be impossible such as offering a sucessful domestic service out of JFK and to an extent operating a 2nd type aircraft. They also proven that LGB can be a sucessful
operation.

Fact 4:
Low cost service on international routes seems to be the latest trend which is evident by the recent expansion by jetstar and oasis hong kong. There are also some lcc international service out of Canada, however, we still need a true American LCC International carrier. MaxJet and EOS don't count since they cater to the business and first class travelers.

Argument for 3rd type of aircraft:
jetBlue needs a larger aircraft slot control airports such as LGB. In addition, larger longer range aircraft will allow jetBlue to serve other international destinations. In addition to other international destinations, some domestic destionations such as Hawaii would be well within the range of most larger aircraft from JFK.

Argument against a 3rd type of aircraft:
jetBlue is not expanding anytime soon and having a 3rd type of aircraft will just increase cost. In addition, jetBlue stated in the past that it have no interest in serving international destinations such as europe and since Hawaii is a leasure market, there is simply not the demand for a service from the mainland to the islands.

now YOUR TURN! :D

First, I'll predict that this is going to be on extremely long thread/debate!

A second aircraft type for jetBlue? I personally don't think so. It would absolutely kill the cost structure.

I think you have a great point as far as the U.S. needing a true LCC with good service to fly overseas. It's definitely an opportunity, but is it the right one for jetBlue? International flying like that is a whole other ball game. I'm sure someone, somewhere is out there evaluating the market to launch a LCC to fly overseas from the U.S. Especially since legacy airlines cut domestic capacity to refocus on international routes, it would not make sense for jetBlue to enter that fight now. Maybe a STARTUP will do so.

Hawaii...it can from the west coast happen if jetBlue takes delivery of A319 aircraft. Fleet commonality is where jetBlue would be looking.

One thing I have learned, especially about the airline industry, is "never say never"...this is nothing more than my opinion, but anything can happen. I just doubt it.

Remember that the beginning of the end for People Express, 20+ years ago, was when they bought used 747s and opened LGW.

The PE model was highly successful when they stuck to one aircraft type and underserved stations within three hours of EWR. It began to wobble when they went to two aircraft types (adding old 727s) and opened stations like DFW that already had sufficient service.

PE imploded when they added 747s, opened transatlantic service, added already-saturated west coast stations, and invaded key legacy carrier city pairs like EWR-ORD, EWR-LAX/SFO, and EWR-LGW. The whole deal collapsed within a couple of years.

I am a big fan of B6 and I don't want to see 'em travel the same path! Already, I think the Embraers and opening ORD are missteps that remind me of the way People Express went... you know the old line about how those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

Let's see just one intercontinental LCC succeed first. I don't think there's any evidence that it can be done. All these random NY-UK one-aircraft business class deals don't count as LCCs in my mind, and Oasis out of HKG is just out of the gate; I'd be surprised if Cathay Pacific, which unlike BA operates large economy cabins, tolerates Oasis for long.

I would hate for B6 to be the American example that proves my suspicion that intercon LCC'ing is too difficult.

I a agree with your entire post except for the following:
JetBlue is going on 7 years; PE was around for 5 years. Already, jetBlue has proved they are in for the long run...at least much longer than PE.

The E190 addition was a big departure from the rule of one aircraft. However, jetBlue's people have great experience and did the proper research. The E190 had its problems at first, and right now it is performing great and still improving for jetBlue. It offers jetBlue flexibility and the option to enter markets they otherwise wouldn't/couldn't enter with only the A320.

ORD was the most requested city for jetBlue to serve. Those flights are packed and even if it won't turn a profit for jetBlue (which I believe it will indeed, after 12 months or so), jetBlue needs to be in that city just for its customers.

You contradict yourself
 

Wrong
 

I DO NOT contradict myself


The statement below, the one you point out above:

Well, many people already responded so theres really no point to go into details as to why I came to the conclusion on why jetBlue will never charge for the 36 channels of DirecTV

was NOT, I repeat - NOT - written by me. SkaterJasp made that comment in another thread. I do strongly agree with him - jetBlue will never charge for the TV, but once again "never say never"...I just agree with him.

That post was not by me, so please read carefully next time...

A330 with international service.

You are correct
 

You're right...my apologies...I misidentified the poster.

This is completly my humble opinion. B6 is not in the position at all right now to take a 3rd aircraft on. They have 2 that they can work with. I thought it was a necisity for them to take on the E190 in addition to the A320. The reason being are that some market load can only support smaller loads, some markets can only give out larger loads, and the remaining markets are, quite frankly like PWM, very seasonal and need mixed fleets. We all know that- no reason to elaborate. Nevertheless, here's my thoughts on B6 right now and why they need to stick to their game plan with 2 aircraft types:

1) They need to increase frequency or re-evaluate their frequencies on a lot of the current routes. (i.e. No late afternoon/evening flight JKF to MSY yet there is a morning flight and and an early afternon flight to MSY...2PM if I remember correctly).

2) Start connecting those dots more. MCO has service to 9 cities, 5 are in/very close to NYC. I know the figures are very high for the NYC-FLA routes but still, they are more fish to becaught. WN picked up the IAD-MCO service after the collapse of Indepence Air. I don't know if WN beat them to the punch or if B6 completely missed it. Either way, it was a route they should have initiated. IMHO, IAD-MCO is a better route than JFK/BOS-PIT. It seems like B6 is missing some of the obvious routes (maybe a reason they had to re-eveluate their growth stategy?).

3) New stations: As far as major cities go, I thought ORD was good, yet SFO is going to be prove to be a mistake in the near future, but will work out in th long run. There really isn't much in the way of LCC service to ORD and B6 has no other service near chicago at all. I know WN, ATA, and FL all use midway; with that in mind, ORD was the better choice. However, SFO is going to prove that its not the right time. B6 already serve SJC, OAK, and SMF already. If I was calling shot at B6, I would have put my resources in expanding those cities before picking up SFO. Understandably, they are trying to prevent costumer losage to Virgin America but still, the last I checked VA weren't close to flying yet. IMHO, B6 should consentrating on building up focus cities at FLL, MCO, IAD and OAK and expanding their Carribean routes from JFK, BOS and MCO. BTW, what about STL? It would make a great east/west focus city.

Understood, no problem

From what I see, B6 can't get right what they have right now: two consecutive years of losses, removing seats (again) because they can't figure out how to profitably fill them with pax, E190 still isn't up to where B6 wants it to be, returning planes because they can't find enough flights for them.

Taking on another plane now is not what B6 needs. Basically, figure out the existing business model first.

I understand that having an 3rd aircraft is highly unlikely, but who knows what will happen 5, 10, 15 years down the line because you can only expand so much with the E190s and A320s. Unlike PE, jetBlue has their act together and also lacked the chaotic management team that PE has. jetBlue knows what market to enter and, unlike most other airlines, is willing to ditch a route before its to late (such as ATL). With that said, an larger aircraft would be nice to have a few years down the line to expand capacity at slot controled airports such as LGB. PSA, an sucessful low cost airline that was purchased by USAir was operating L1011 between Southern and Northern California and Pan Am was known to operate 747s between SFO and LAX. I think LGB - OAK is jetBlue's version of the popular SFO - LAX routes. Even having the A321 as the 3rd type of aircraft is not entirely out of the question as it could help with increasing capcity at airports like LGB.

Southwest seems to do well with just 737's which is 4x the size of B6. Plenty of room yet for B6 to grow without needing numerous aircraft types.

If B6 is looking to simply serve more cities than anyone else, then yes, they'll need a different plane for longer range destinations.

However, if B6 is looking to expand in a smart way, it would build up the cities it serves first. Many cities now have just one or two flights a day. How about building those up first?

It comes down to that too much of B6's prior growth has been built on expansion of new cities instead of growing existing cities. Given reduced load levels, that seems to indicate the "JetBlue buzz" seems to fade after awhile instead of increasing. That is why new flights to existing cities don't get announced nearly as often as new cities do. Heck, with many transcon destinations, they've been reducing capacity.

B6 has lots of room to grow with what it has now; fix that first. But make no mistake about it, B6 has hit a wall. They showed up in numerous cities and got business. No biggie there, just about anyone can do that. But how about being the #2, #3, #4, or #5 carrier in numerous markets (markets, not airports)? Now, that's a goal where B6 can say they've been truly successful in a market.

We're in the midst of a transition at B6 from high growth to smart growth. Can they make the change? Time will tell. I bet the change will depend on what they do with their existing fleet and not on introducing a new type of aircraft.

Southwest is the most successful airline in the country precisely because they have resisted the urge to mutate, or grow in risky ways:

** One, count 'em, one, aircraft type.

** They're not duking it out in ORD or LGA or JFK or ATL or BOS.

** When they open a new city they pick it very carefully, then go in for the kill. They don't dabble with two or three flights a day; they run a blitzkrieg. They don't aim for a few market share points; they either create a new market (MHT) or transform one (BWI, where they decimated a US stronghold).

** No "marquee" or "prestige" routes that would earn attention and maybe full planes, but no money: HNL or LGW, for example.

Southwest sticks to their knitting and aims to kill. JetBlue doesn't seem to have that discipline down yet.

I live in SEA where B6 has just two flights a day: redeyes to JFK and BOS. They don't advertise here. They have almost no visibility here. The aircraft are only seen here between 1000p and 1200a and the modest check-in desk is unmanned all day long. They're such an afterthought here that when I was being scr@wed over by DL a few weeks ago and absolutely, positively had to get to BOS in a hurry, I didn't even think of B6 until it was almost too late. (And I initally booked a seat to JFK plus a rent-a-car... I did not even know B6 served BOS direct from here until I walked down the concourse and saw the other flight's gate signage! And I pay closer attention than most to what's up at Sea-Tac.) I daresay other JetBlue west coast stations are in the same situation.

I would LOVE B6 to build a real presence here in SEA but it'll take more frequencies to the east, new service down to OAK and LGB, and more marketing. Southwest is solidly entrenched in SEA; B6 is an afterthought.

So forget a third aircraft type and work on building up the stations you've got with the aircraft you've got.