Jetblue to San Diego

[ITRADE]

----------------
On 3/19/2003 106 PM Farley wrote:

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.

----------------​

Heck, SAN rarely used RNWY 9 for departures/landings.

I have seen it periodically in fall/winter during the Santa Ana season and during summer when the tropical flow from Mexico makes it far enough north and west.

I''ve flown into and out of SAN dozens (50+ times), and have never departed or landed off RNWY 9.

 

[funguy2]

I''ve also noticed that there were no comments regarding my assertion that Neeleman has made statements that the company''s actions have contradicted. Specifically, hs has said they would add no new destinations... They have announced two new destinations this month. Was Neeleman''s statement for 2002? Is he throwing of the competition? Do I remember wrong?

 

[funguy2]

----------------
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.

----------------​

Ok... My comment on the above suggestion to tag SAN-LGB to a transcon (lets say the new LGB-ATL service). Assuming that there is zero local traffic, that means, in order for the LGB-ATL flight to be full, some people would need to start in SAN, and some in LGB. Lets assume that LGB-ATL runs at a 100% load factor. Now if the vast majority of these people start in LGB (lets say 75%), then SAN-LGB will run with 25% load because there is no local traffic. Or assume there is a timy bit of local traffic, and it runs with a 35% load, whoopie. A 35% load on that flight will not be profitable. Even if you could get people to connect to other places, its not likely to come close to a normal 70% load factor because the only other viable connections would be to FLL and IAD... JFK already served, and nobody (ok few) is making a connection between SAN and LAS or OAK.

Now lets make the opposite assumption. SAN-LGB-ATL. LGB-ATL operates full, 100%. Now lets assume the vast majority come from SAN. Well, if you have a SAN-ATL passengers making up 75% of the LGB-ATL trip, why bother stoping at LGB? It raises the cost with only a small amount of revenue gain.

Now the middle assumption has some merit... where 1/2 come from LGB and 1/2 come from SAN. In this case, you would need the SAN-LGB, because you wouldn''t fly to either anticipating a 50% load. However, since JB has multiple nonstops on all of its routes from LGB, I have to assume that these are not routes that close that they would NEED feed from SAN. Furthermore, with the number of airplanes that JB has coming, if they want to be in the business of flying folks from SAN to ATL or IAD or FLL or OAK, they can simply use their new deliveries to do it. JB is not airplane constrained, which might drive such a decision.

In fact... since JB is constrained by LGB slots, why waste them on SAN-LGB when they could go to more profitable flying like LGB-BOS or LGB-ORD or something else that may be in the works?

Lastly, I''ll address the question of why did this work for PSA 25 years ago. Well, a lot has changed in 25 years. There were no hub and spoke systems, at least not to the extent they are developed now. Furthermore, there were no aircraft capable of flying small numbers of people long distances. The airplanes of 25 years ago flew large numbers of people long distances and smaller numbers of people shorter distances. The point of this is that people have come to expect nonstop service. If not nonstop, then one-stop through a major hub. 25 years ago, people expected more hops... So maybe SAN-LAX-SFO-RNO worked... Today, people expect SAN-SFO nonstop, and SAN-RNO nonstop or one-stop. Now, if a flight requires a short tag with little O/D traffic, the airlines substitute lower capacity aircraft rather than operate the tag.

I don''t believe we''ll see LGB-SAN happen on JetBlue. IAD/FLL/ATL/OAK/SLC-SAN... all that is more plausible.

 

[Ch. 12]

----------------
On 3/19/2003 5:12:07 PM funguy2 wrote:

I''ve also noticed that there were no comments regarding my assertion that Neeleman has made statements that the company''s actions have contradicted. Specifically, hs has said they would add no new destinations... They have announced two new destinations this month. Was Neeleman''s statement for 2002? Is he throwing of the competition? Do I remember wrong?

----------------​

To be a successful operation, you can''t always hold yourself to statements regarding future policy/action. Especially in the airline industry, it''s essential to have the ability to react (not just to competitors, but also market conditions) on short notice and sometimes this means changing strategies. It''s those carriers that lack this adaptability that fail. Maybe the issue is that one shouldn''t try to make too large of a forward-looking statement that they then lose credibility. I think I''d rather have success than credibility, though.

 

[funguy2]

----------------
On 3/20/2003 8:39:57 AM Ch. 12 wrote:

----------------
On 3/19/2003 5:12:07 PM funguy2 wrote:

I''ve also noticed that there were no comments regarding my assertion that Neeleman has made statements that the company''s actions have contradicted. Specifically, hs has said they would add no new destinations... They have announced two new destinations this month. Was Neeleman''s statement for 2002? Is he throwing of the competition? Do I remember wrong?

----------------​

To be a successful operation, you can''t always hold yourself to statements regarding future policy/action. Especially in the airline industry, it''s essential to have the ability to react (not just to competitors, but also market conditions) on short notice and sometimes this means changing strategies. It''s those carriers that lack this adaptability that fail. Maybe the issue is that one shouldn''t try to make too large of a forward-looking statement that they then lose credibility. I think I''d rather have success than credibility, though.

----------------​

CH 12: I totally agree that flexible companies will come out survivors. But, when Herb Kelleher said two new cities this year, exactly 2 new cities were added. When Jim Parker said no new cities thie year, there were none. Then when they changed their mind, they said, we are considering adding a new city... Then it was announced.

On the other hand... JB, Neeleman specifically said, on more than one occasion that no new destinations would be added. I think (my recollection may be weak here) that this was said prior to the addition of LGB, SJU, and now ATL and SAN. So I am left with this impression that Neeleman''s statements have been consistently different from the company''s action. So, I am wondering aloud: Is this on purpose. Everyone knows the power of mis-information in a war. Is this purposeful mis-information? Or is this really unforeseen opportunities? Or is there a disconnect between Neeleman and the planning group (highly unlikely)?

I am asking this question, because any insight into this area would influence my expectations of JB. For example, I was expecting more "connecting of dots" because thats what Neeleman publicly stated. Instead, new dots were added. Maybe in the future, I''ll take Neeleman''s public statements with a grain of salt if I believe that there is purposeful mis-information. On the other hand, maybe I''ll see JB as more shrewd because they are able to jump on opportunities, even though its outside the plan. That is why I bring up this topic.

 

[BlueCrew]

On 3/19/2003 5:12:07 PM funguy2 wrote:

I''ve also noticed that there were no comments regarding my assertion that Neeleman has made statements that the company''s actions have contradicted. Specifically, hs has said they would add no new destinations... They have announced two new destinations this month. Was Neeleman''s statement for 2002? Is he throwing of the competition? Do I remember wrong?

During the last employee meeting I went to with Neeleman (October) he said 2-3 new cities for 2003 and connecting the dots. This business is reinventing itself to a large degree, and JetBlue is just remaining committed to being nimble and opportunistic. If we find ourselves in a business climate later where 4 new cities make sense, I suspect we''d see 4 new cities. We have some smart folks in Forest Hills and none of these decisions are knee-jerk, I assure you. LGB-ATL, although it caught everyone by surprise, is a market in need of some competition and low fares. And remember JetBlue doesn''t necessarily "steal" passengers when entering a market...we also generate traffic, our LGB operation is a perfect example. SAN-JFK is filling a gap left recently...we have a cost structure that allows us to operate profitably in that market when others may not.

Just my 2 cents after being quiet for so long...

 

[Farley]

ITRADE, you are correct. RNWY 27 is the primary runway. Landing on 9 is rare. As someone who was raised under the departure end of RNWY 27, I can tell you that when it is foggy (most often calm winds, too) they land on RNWY 9, which is a nice break from hearing takeoff power all day long. A lot of the late night cargo lands on 9 as well (the curfew is for departures).

 

[AAmech]

I agree with you Blue. The landscape is changing daily and what may have made sense a year ago may not now. They may do a lot of things nobody thought they would do!

 

[gilbertguy]

----------------
On 3/18/2003 8:00:56 AM Farley wrote:

Yeah, sorry, it is from JFK. Where will our "worrisome flight path" take us next?

----------------​

For those in the know.....will Jetblue be entering the PHX market also? I''ve heard they may go into PHX area....perhaps Williams-Gateway airport avoiding SkyHarbor congestion......THX

 

[Ch. 12]

----------------
For those in the know.....will Jetblue be entering the PHX market also? I''ve heard they may go into PHX area....perhaps Williams-Gateway airport avoiding SkyHarbor congestion......THX

----------------

I would hope that it wouldn''t be WGA. That is almost as bad as MidAmerica or GYY (Gary, Ind.) as far as a reliever airport goes. The location is far better at WGA than the other two, but it just doesn''t seem to fit the JB way. It seems like more of the "over-avoidance" tactic that sunk PanAm. I could be wrong, but I hope that if JB goes to PHX, then they actually do fly into Sky Harbor rather than WGA.

 

[viggen597]

From what Ive heard through the grapevine is that jB is looking at Tuscon, not PHX. PHX isnt an area of opportunity as much as Tuscon is, but hey thats just what Ive heard.

 

[motnot]

I''ve said it before and I''ll say it now: What incentive does JBLU have for serving PHX?

PHX already is a hub to the top two low-fare carriers. There''s very limited potential in undercutting those two.

Pricing below UAL and AMR can be very profitable, but trying that on LUV and AWA is just plain stupid.

 

[mga707]

----------------
On 3/27/2003 12:24:13 AM viggen597 wrote:

From what Ive heard through the grapevine is that jB is looking at Tuscon, not PHX. PHX isnt an area of opportunity as much as Tuscon is, but hey thats just what Ive heard.

----------------​

Ah, the mysterious, mythical kingdom of "Tuscon", not found on any map...
Our local paper recounts "Tuscon" sightings from other media!

 

[AAG2000]

----------------
On 3/27/2003 7:13:38 AM mga707 wrote:

Ah, the mysterious, mythical kingdom of "Tuscon", not found on any map...

----------------​

That''s why it''s such an area of opportunity! Nobody flies there yet!

 

[Jeff G]

----------------
On 3/27/2003 3:49:25 AM motnot wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it now: What incentive does JBLU have for serving PHX?

PHX already is a hub to the top two low-fare carriers. There's very limited potential in undercutting those two.

Pricing below UAL and AMR can be very profitable, but trying that on LUV and AWA is just plain stupid.

----------------​

LUV doesn't serve JFK to PHX, though, does it? Only AWA and DAL serve this route non-stop. Widen the search to NYC and you find that CAL also goes non-stop from EWR. And the lowest one way fare (a month in advance) I found in a very unscientific search is $332. Reduce the lead time to a week, and it's $432. You do a little better out of EWR, saving $20. But, JetBlue would serve this market so that the one way fare range would be something like $169 to $299, and thereby both grow the market and take market share. There's the incentive.

It doesn't matter that PHX is a LUV hub if LUV doesn't serve that market. It's not good news for AWA, though. Probably what would happen is that AWA will match, and both carriers will carry the load. (And maybe DAL would go there with Song, who knows?) Those originating their travel in PHX would mostly choose AWA and those in NYC would mostly choose JBLU. If the revenue is such that it makes enough money for JBLU, then it makes sense - for JBLU. Why is it "just plain stupid"?