Next Stop O'hare?

[chucky]

JetBlue asks FAA for Chicago (O'Hare) landing spots (10/03/2006)

JetBlue has applied for landing rights that would let it begin offering service to Chicago's O'Hare Airport this November.
The low-cost carrier, based at New York's Kennedy Airport, has asked the Federal Aviation Administration for eight arrival slots at O'Hare between 8 a.m. and 7:59 p.m.


To contact the reporter who wrote this article, send e-mail to Andrew Compart at [email protected].



__________________________________

This article appeared in the Oct. 3 issue of TravelWeekly.com.

 

[NAPAUS]

JetBlue asks FAA for Chicago (O'Hare) landing spots (10/03/2006)

JetBlue has applied for landing rights that would let it begin offering service to Chicago's O'Hare Airport this November.
The low-cost carrier, based at New York's Kennedy Airport, has asked the Federal Aviation Administration for eight arrival slots at O'Hare between 8 a.m. and 7:59 p.m.


To contact the reporter who wrote this article, send e-mail to Andrew Compart at [email protected].
__________________________________

This article appeared in the Oct. 3 issue of TravelWeekly.com.

AWSEUM!! Can't wait for JB to start service to O'Hare. Any idea when the answer will come down?

 

[Flying Titan]

This seems a little odd to me. As I understand it, the problem hasn't been landing slots, rather gate space at ORD. This gives no indication that B6 has reached an agreement for gate space at O'Hare.

Wouldn't surprise me if this were a case of trying to get FAA blessing and then using it to put public pressure on the airport to come up with a gate or two.

 

[Fly]

Seems very wrong considering that UAL and AA were forced to reduce flying to reduce congestion at ORD.

 

[Flying Titan]

Fly...
IIRC, there was a provision for new carriers in the most recent congestion plan. While I understand your viewpoint that it's wrong to make AA and UA limit their ops due to congestion, it seems just as wrong for AA and UA to be able to gum up the flight pattern so much that no new entrant would be allowed into an airport as big and important as ORD. Somebody gets the short end of the stick either way.

 

[Fly]

If they were doing it to reduce congestion, then no new entrants should be allowed. If they were doing it to open other entrants into ORD, then it would be different. They forced the reduction because of congestion, so they should not be allowed.

That's the way I see it anyway.

 

[Fly]

And apparently United agrees: Here's their response

 

[GroundedBoricua]

In my opinion,B6 is looking for a kick in the ass. I read in the paper that they want to operate up to 8 flight from ORD. With the current delay problem at ORD. that can bust a can of worms in B6 system, delaying other flights because of ORD delays. The only way to get around this is to dedicate 1 or 2 aircraft soley for ORD. I was delayed going to SJU for 3 hours. The weather was sunny and 85 F, but not at ORD where the flight crew was coming from.

 

[Flying Titan]

AA adds its two cents on the B6 slot request...

AA motion to the FAA

 

[Flying Titan]

JetBlue responds to UAL objections...

B6 letter to FAA

 

[Flying Titan]

Looks like the FAA sides with JetBlue's reading of the rules...

Article from Crain's Chicago Business

 

[flyhigh]

AA & UA should be allowed to break their end of the agreement given this. They mutually and voluntarily agreed to reduce flights here to ease the situation overall. If the real issue was to reduce AA/UA flights to allow others to come in, then they should be allowed to reinstate their flights. I don't think this is a matter of competition, but more that of government intervention. If AA & UA so happen to add a ton of JFK flights...so be it. That should be their perogotive as well.

 

[Flying Titan]

JetBlue gets the slots. Here's the letter from the FAA to JetBlue...

FAA letter to JetBlue

 

[jimntx]

One of these days in the not too distant future, I think we are going to see very similar action regarding JB and Love Field in Dallas.