Jetblue to San Diego
- Thread starter Farley
- Start date
I would guess that LGB-SAN cannot be too far behind. I would think at least 1 or 2 a day that mate up with the IAD-LGB and FLL-LGB flights. Which reminds me, why are the connection times IAD-LGB-LAS so terrible. You would think that they could link them up a little better.
ITRADE
Veteran
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/18/2003 8:46:07 AM audio-nut wrote:
I would guess that LGB-SAN cannot be too far behind. I would think at least 1 or 2 a day that mate up with the IAD-LGB and FLL-LGB flights. Which reminds me, why are the connection times IAD-LGB-LAS so terrible. You would think that they could link them up a little better.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I would doubt SAN-LGB. They don't fly IAD-JFK. SAN-LGB would have 0 local market. If they want to fly SAN-FLL and IAD, they will probably just add that as they have with other markets. Seems to me they are looking at the local market, and IAD-LAS is one they are not interested in... Or maybe they have other priorities.
On a different note, I thought JB was not adding new destinations... just 'connecting the dots'. Maybe Neeleman is not talking with his planning guys? (Not likely) Or maybe things have changed. Or maybe he is trying to throw off the competition. Comments?
----------------
On 3/18/2003 8:46:07 AM audio-nut wrote:
I would guess that LGB-SAN cannot be too far behind. I would think at least 1 or 2 a day that mate up with the IAD-LGB and FLL-LGB flights. Which reminds me, why are the connection times IAD-LGB-LAS so terrible. You would think that they could link them up a little better.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I would doubt SAN-LGB. They don't fly IAD-JFK. SAN-LGB would have 0 local market. If they want to fly SAN-FLL and IAD, they will probably just add that as they have with other markets. Seems to me they are looking at the local market, and IAD-LAS is one they are not interested in... Or maybe they have other priorities.
On a different note, I thought JB was not adding new destinations... just 'connecting the dots'. Maybe Neeleman is not talking with his planning guys? (Not likely) Or maybe things have changed. Or maybe he is trying to throw off the competition. Comments?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/18/2003 10:20:42 AM funguy2 wrote:
I would doubt SAN-LGB. They don't fly IAD-JFK. SAN-LGB would have 0 local market. If they want to fly SAN-FLL and IAD, they will probably just add that as they have with other markets. Seems to me they are looking at the local market, and IAD-LAS is one they are not interested in... Or maybe they have other priorities.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I understand the local market is small but consider the draw from ATL, FLL and IAD. They are running 7 OAK-LGB and 3 LAS-LGB a day in crowded markets in order to hold slots. Why not run 2 SAN-LGB and pickup the connecting traffic?
----------------
On 3/18/2003 10:20:42 AM funguy2 wrote:
I would doubt SAN-LGB. They don't fly IAD-JFK. SAN-LGB would have 0 local market. If they want to fly SAN-FLL and IAD, they will probably just add that as they have with other markets. Seems to me they are looking at the local market, and IAD-LAS is one they are not interested in... Or maybe they have other priorities.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I understand the local market is small but consider the draw from ATL, FLL and IAD. They are running 7 OAK-LGB and 3 LAS-LGB a day in crowded markets in order to hold slots. Why not run 2 SAN-LGB and pickup the connecting traffic?
JFK-SAN surpirses all of us to, even though it was a 'rumor' for a while. Compared to what the majors are charging (NYC-SAN), $119 each way looks like a bargain, especially since you wont have to connect.
As far as I know, Neeleman wants to 'connect the dots' as well as add new destinations and frequenices. 1-3 new destinations a year seems to be the target, but in an ever changing industry, 1-3 new destinations can also be considered a 'rumor'. SAN was one of the rumors flying around the halls of jetBlue, one that seemed very less definite as ORD and BOS. Goes to show you that hearsay is not reliable.
I'd like to see B6 in the JFK-YYZ market. I know its served already by Air Canada (from LGA) but at a huge cost as to what we could charge. Thoughts?
As far as I know, Neeleman wants to 'connect the dots' as well as add new destinations and frequenices. 1-3 new destinations a year seems to be the target, but in an ever changing industry, 1-3 new destinations can also be considered a 'rumor'. SAN was one of the rumors flying around the halls of jetBlue, one that seemed very less definite as ORD and BOS. Goes to show you that hearsay is not reliable.
I'd like to see B6 in the JFK-YYZ market. I know its served already by Air Canada (from LGA) but at a huge cost as to what we could charge. Thoughts?
ITRADE
Veteran
LGB-SAN might be possible if the SAN-LGB leg is a tag to a transcon flight.
SAN-LGB itself is about 110 miles and will have basically NO o/d traffic. Its too close and folks would rather drive or take Amtrak.
Anyway, SAN - LA has gobs of service courtesy of Eagle and UA Express. Those flights are basically all feed for the LAX originators.
Finally, a short hop like that in a A320 would burn a lot of fuel and be rather expensive.
SAN-LGB itself is about 110 miles and will have basically NO o/d traffic. Its too close and folks would rather drive or take Amtrak.
Anyway, SAN - LA has gobs of service courtesy of Eagle and UA Express. Those flights are basically all feed for the LAX originators.
Finally, a short hop like that in a A320 would burn a lot of fuel and be rather expensive.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/18/2003 4:03:15 PM ITRADE wrote:
LGB-SAN might be possible if the SAN-LGB leg is a tag to a transcon flight.
SAN-LGB itself is about 110 miles and will have basically NO o/d traffic. Its too close and folks would rather drive or take Amtrak.
Anyway, SAN - LA has gobs of service courtesy of Eagle and UA Express. Those flights are basically all feed for the LAX originators.
Finally, a short hop like that in a A320 would burn a lot of fuel and be rather expensive.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Agree on the lack of o/d traffic, but wonder what happened to it and why.
20 years ago PSA ran 7 r/t SAN-LAX flights per day. 25 years ago they had an amazing 14 r/t flights!
Plus, you had Imperial running Bandits every 30 or 60 minutes--which I guess would equate to the UA Ex/AA Eagle flights of today.
But still, how come PSA could run so many 727s/MD80s on this route (and 727s certainly were more expensive to operate than A320s). the average driving time has certainly not gotten any less. Is there train service now that wasn't around back then?
----------------
On 3/18/2003 4:03:15 PM ITRADE wrote:
LGB-SAN might be possible if the SAN-LGB leg is a tag to a transcon flight.
SAN-LGB itself is about 110 miles and will have basically NO o/d traffic. Its too close and folks would rather drive or take Amtrak.
Anyway, SAN - LA has gobs of service courtesy of Eagle and UA Express. Those flights are basically all feed for the LAX originators.
Finally, a short hop like that in a A320 would burn a lot of fuel and be rather expensive.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Agree on the lack of o/d traffic, but wonder what happened to it and why.
20 years ago PSA ran 7 r/t SAN-LAX flights per day. 25 years ago they had an amazing 14 r/t flights!
Plus, you had Imperial running Bandits every 30 or 60 minutes--which I guess would equate to the UA Ex/AA Eagle flights of today.
But still, how come PSA could run so many 727s/MD80s on this route (and 727s certainly were more expensive to operate than A320s). the average driving time has certainly not gotten any less. Is there train service now that wasn't around back then?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/18/2003 1:08:55 PM viggen597 wrote:
I'd like to see B6 in the JFK-YYZ market. I know its served already by Air Canada (from LGA) but at a huge cost as to what we could charge. Thoughts?
----------------
[/blockquote]
It is plausible as there is customs clearance from YYZ to the USA, but:
1) I'm not sure there is room (gates etc) at YYZ for jetBlue. At least not right now, maybe when terminal 1 and 2 are replaced by T-New in a few years.
2) Westjet may beat jetBlue in the Canada-USA market by a LCC
3) AC may hold jetBlue in check by AC Tango
----------------
On 3/18/2003 1:08:55 PM viggen597 wrote:
I'd like to see B6 in the JFK-YYZ market. I know its served already by Air Canada (from LGA) but at a huge cost as to what we could charge. Thoughts?
----------------
[/blockquote]
It is plausible as there is customs clearance from YYZ to the USA, but:
1) I'm not sure there is room (gates etc) at YYZ for jetBlue. At least not right now, maybe when terminal 1 and 2 are replaced by T-New in a few years.
2) Westjet may beat jetBlue in the Canada-USA market by a LCC
3) AC may hold jetBlue in check by AC Tango
ITRADE
Veteran
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/18/2003 4:31:31 PM mga707 wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/18/2003 4:03:15 PM ITRADE wrote:
LGB-SAN might be possible if the SAN-LGB leg is a tag to a transcon flight.
SAN-LGB itself is about 110 miles and will have basically NO o/d traffic. Its too close and folks would rather drive or take Amtrak.
Anyway, SAN - LA has gobs of service courtesy of Eagle and UA Express. Those flights are basically all feed for the LAX originators.
Finally, a short hop like that in a A320 would burn a lot of fuel and be rather expensive.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Agree on the lack of o/d traffic, but wonder what happened to it and why.
20 years ago PSA ran 7 r/t SAN-LAX flights per day. 25 years ago they had an amazing 14 r/t flights!
Plus, you had Imperial running Bandits every 30 or 60 minutes--which I guess would equate to the UA Ex/AA Eagle flights of today.
But still, how come PSA could run so many 727s/MD80s on this route (and 727s certainly were more expensive to operate than A320s). the average driving time has certainly not gotten any less. Is there train service now that wasn't around back then?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Perhaps the old flights were not necessarily O/D traffic flights, but were, istead, flights done simply because the old systems of economics yield management were not as important back then.
You'd run your SAN-LAX flight as the originator to a flight running to FAT or MRY.
Amtrak was around back then, but was not as prevelant. I think Amtrak was running 6 or so trains a day.
While driving time has not decreased much (it probably has increased owing to traffic on the 405), the time required to transit via airplane has certainly increased owing to the security precautions that have been put into place.
----------------
On 3/18/2003 4:31:31 PM mga707 wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/18/2003 4:03:15 PM ITRADE wrote:
LGB-SAN might be possible if the SAN-LGB leg is a tag to a transcon flight.
SAN-LGB itself is about 110 miles and will have basically NO o/d traffic. Its too close and folks would rather drive or take Amtrak.
Anyway, SAN - LA has gobs of service courtesy of Eagle and UA Express. Those flights are basically all feed for the LAX originators.
Finally, a short hop like that in a A320 would burn a lot of fuel and be rather expensive.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Agree on the lack of o/d traffic, but wonder what happened to it and why.
20 years ago PSA ran 7 r/t SAN-LAX flights per day. 25 years ago they had an amazing 14 r/t flights!
Plus, you had Imperial running Bandits every 30 or 60 minutes--which I guess would equate to the UA Ex/AA Eagle flights of today.
But still, how come PSA could run so many 727s/MD80s on this route (and 727s certainly were more expensive to operate than A320s). the average driving time has certainly not gotten any less. Is there train service now that wasn't around back then?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Perhaps the old flights were not necessarily O/D traffic flights, but were, istead, flights done simply because the old systems of economics yield management were not as important back then.
You'd run your SAN-LAX flight as the originator to a flight running to FAT or MRY.
Amtrak was around back then, but was not as prevelant. I think Amtrak was running 6 or so trains a day.
While driving time has not decreased much (it probably has increased owing to traffic on the 405), the time required to transit via airplane has certainly increased owing to the security precautions that have been put into place.
I am not so sure that this is the smartest idea. While I am sure the JB folks have looked into it and they know their equipment better then I do but take a look at the numbers.
http://www.airnav.com/airport/SAN
Taking off from in all reality a one way in and out airport in the hot summer heat(look at airport hours of operation) with a full load and having to travel 2,500 miles to JFK with a suitable alternate.
What about having to fly a full A320 JFK-SAN in the winter to an airport with only one ILS (one way in) facing 100+ kts winds then having to divert to your alt (LGB?) with legal fuel.
Can the aircraft do this without a weight restriction? Maybe one of the JB A320 experts could fill me in (not being sarcastic just trying to learn)
http://www.airnav.com/airport/SAN
Taking off from in all reality a one way in and out airport in the hot summer heat(look at airport hours of operation) with a full load and having to travel 2,500 miles to JFK with a suitable alternate.
What about having to fly a full A320 JFK-SAN in the winter to an airport with only one ILS (one way in) facing 100+ kts winds then having to divert to your alt (LGB?) with legal fuel.
Can the aircraft do this without a weight restriction? Maybe one of the JB A320 experts could fill me in (not being sarcastic just trying to learn)
ITRADE
Veteran
----------------
On 3/19/2003 11:35:07 AM G4G5 wrote:
I am not so sure that this is the smartest idea. While I am sure the JB folks have looked into it and they know their equipment better then I do but take a look at the numbers.
http://www.airnav.com/airport/SAN
Taking off from in all reality a one way in and out airport in the hot summer heat(look at airport hours of operation) with a full load and having to travel 2,500 miles to JFK with a suitable alternate.
What about having to fly a full A320 JFK-SAN in the winter to an airport with only one ILS (one way in) facing 100+ kts winds then having to divert to your alt (LGB?) with legal fuel.
Can the aircraft do this without a weight restriction? Maybe one of the JB A320 experts could fill me in (not being sarcastic just trying to learn)
----------------
On 3/19/2003 11:35:07 AM G4G5 wrote:
I am not so sure that this is the smartest idea. While I am sure the JB folks have looked into it and they know their equipment better then I do but take a look at the numbers.
http://www.airnav.com/airport/SAN
Taking off from in all reality a one way in and out airport in the hot summer heat(look at airport hours of operation) with a full load and having to travel 2,500 miles to JFK with a suitable alternate.
What about having to fly a full A320 JFK-SAN in the winter to an airport with only one ILS (one way in) facing 100+ kts winds then having to divert to your alt (LGB?) with legal fuel.
Can the aircraft do this without a weight restriction? Maybe one of the JB A320 experts could fill me in (not being sarcastic just trying to learn)
----------------
Flying eastbound in an A320 from SAN should not be an issue. It does not get that hot at SAN in summer (a bad day in summer would be in the low 90s). In fact, you usually experience your hottest day in September. Nonetheless, 9,400 feet is a decent sized runway and the angles off Runway 27 arent that steep. Once you're up, the west to east winds should push you there.
As to east to west travel, I will point out that most airlines would divert well before the time they get to SAN. The weather in winter is not that awful (usually).
If a plane must divert near touchdown, and its low on fuel, flights into SAN actually used to land at Miramar MCAS and the airlines would bus passengers from Miramar. I'm not sure if that practice still exists post-9-11.
Finally, I'll point out that US flies Airbus craft all the time from PHL to SAN. A319s, A320s and A321s (although PHL usually gets A319s and A321s to LAX). US DOES fly A320s from PHL to LAX which is 2400 miles.
- Thread Starter
- #15
G4G5, have you ever experienced a San Diego "winter"? I assure you that it is nicer than the nicest spring day in New York. Fog can be an issue (albeit rarely), and unless things have changed, the primary runway has no ILS at all-just a localizer. I don''t have any app plates handy, but I would expect that there is some sort of RNAV approach that we can fly into RNWY 27. RNWY 9 does have an ILS for those times when fog is an issue (winds rarely preclude the use of RNWY 9 when it is foggy). Lastly, 90 degree days are not common, but the airplane will have as much as 10,000 lbs less fuel due to the tailwinds heading back to JFK. I for one will be trying my best to get San Diego overnights, especially in the winter.
Similar threads
