Long Beach = Waterloo

[MrMarky]

Ironically enough, I would anticipate at some point at least a limited code-share between WN and B6. The new wave in industry consolidation appears to be code shares, and they could both use it to good advantage.

Step 1, start at OAK. WN feeds B6 transcons, and B6 feeds WN connections all over the west coast.

Step 2, B6 starts transcons at BWI and they do the same thing there.

Step 3, repeat step 2 in FLL.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Ironically enough, I would anticipate at some point at least a limited code-share between WN and B6. The new wave in industry consolidation appears to be code shares, and they could both use it to good advantage.

The only way a codeshare works for mutual benefit is when there's a real or artificial barrier which prevents the either carrier from being a direct competitor. There's no tangible benefit for WN. They simply don't need anyone else.

Keep in mind that by simply eliminating a few frequencies here and there, WN could operate B6's entire schedule without dropping any markets or losing a single customer.

And, aside from SJU, they already serve most of the worthwhile markets that B6 does.

 

[funguy2]

A couple of comments:

B6/WN codeshare? Never. WN already has the aircraft capable of this flying. WN already operates "almost" transcons like PHX-BWI, LAS-BWI, PHX-MCO, etc. So if WN can do it on their own, why would they codeshare. The codeshare would only add cost to the product (like integrating computer systems, etc), and split the revenue. You will probably see WN doing BWI-OAK soon enough.

B6 at LGB. I have always viewed this whole item as a mistake.

First, it shows that B6 is not focused on the original plan. OK, plans can change, but I submit that a second hub and/or focus cities were never in the original plan. I would submit a list of carriers who deviated from their plans and failed, but that would be a long list.

Second, why did B6 make a big deal out of this? They should have quietly added flights at LGB as they made sense. Its not like any other airlines were beating down the door trying to get these slots... Before B6 came along American and America West were operating a handful of flights, much less than the number allowed. So, ok, there would have been no guarantee that B6 gets 27 slots. But I think they could have done just fine with 20 slots (assuming AA HP or someone else could get the other 7) and nonstop long hauls to JFK, IAD, FLL, and maybe one or two others over time... They could have done this slowly and quietly over time, and won most of the slots, in my opinion. By making a big deal of it, they invited attention, controversy, and legal problems.

Third, while some have made the claim the B6 will break even or lose just a little on the LGB-OAK/LAS/SLC service in order to keep the LGB slots, what about the opportunity cost of those 2 or 3 airplanes? They could have used these airplanes to start additional (and probably immediately profitable) new service somewhere else instead of the almost guaranteed loss at LGB. Maybe they could have built up IAD more to take advantage of the US and UAL situations, or started service to PIT and CLT. How many carriers with twenty-something airplane can afford to have 2 or 3 tied up in a guaranteed loss making activity. Maybe B6 can, but most small carriers cannot.

Fourth, why take on the nations dominant low-fare airline? There is already a great deal of low-fare service to Southern California. B6 is just another low fare carrier in a crowded field (AWA, Frontier, Southwest, Spirit, National, Vanguard at the time). Had they stayed with the original focus of a low-fare eastern airline based at JFK, they could have owned JFK, IAD, and had a fairly larger presence at FLL, maybe MCO too.

Ok. So I think LGB for JetBlue is a mistake. Will it sink the airline?Probably not. But I do think it has the potential for stunting growth in the near term, because now LGB is a problem that needs to be fixed. Rather than concentrate on what the next best opportunity for B6 is, they will be concentrating on how to fix LGB.

Just one guy's opinion.

 

[N305AS]

----------------
On 8/21/2002 312 PM

Ironically enough, I would anticipate at some point at least a limited code-share between WN and B6. The new wave in industry consolidation appears to be code shares, and they could both use it to good advantage.

Step 1, start at OAK. WN feeds B6 transcons, and B6 feeds WN connections all over the west coast.

Step 2, B6 starts transcons at BWI and they do the same thing there.

Step 3, repeat step 2 in FLL.
----------------

Since WN is becoming more and more interested in transcons, I don't see this as something they'd be interested in. Besides, it would mean they'd have to implement an interline ticketing and baggage agreement with B6, which flies in the face of their business model.

WN will never take on interline ticketing and/or baggage agreements, since the costs involved would drive up their CASM.

 

[KCFlyer]

From the Southwest website:

*The 737-700 is the newest addition to our fleet, and we have lots more on the way. This beautiful new airplane not only flies quieter, farther, and more fuel efficiently, it is roomier. Our –700 seats are pitched at 33-34 inches (and even farther apart at exit rows); but, when we designed its beautiful new interior, we removed the cabin dividers and selected an innovative new seat design. So, when you fly on one of our newer planes, you will actually feel like your seat is pitched at 35 or more inches—the same amount of space in the first- and business-class sections on some airlines!

FWIW - the difference is noticable.

 

[Jeff G]

Southwest has 3" better seat pitch than JBLU. If I'm going to be in a plane for 5-6 hours, I'd rather have a WN plane where I can have a little more legroom, and either bring a book or a portable DVD player if i really need IFE. Then I know what I will watch before I'm in the air.

Lowfare, WN has 35" to 37" seat pitch? I don't think so. Stick to the facts.

BTW, you can carry a book or portable DVD player on JBLU, too, you know. The seats are a bit wider. There's no effective difference in creature comforts between the two carriers. The big difference is in assigned seating and IFE.

 

[runway4]

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

Besides, SWA would serve a snack pack, which is a bit more substantial than blue potato chips.
----------------

Actually, when I flew B6 transcon this past Spring, they served a snack pack (albeit a small one) in addition to two rounds of their usual snacks. Are they no longer doing this?

 

[jbu320]

First, it shows that B6 is not focused on the original plan. OK, plans can change, but I submit that a second hub and/or focus cities were never in the original plan. I would submit a list of carriers who deviated from their plans and failed, but that would be a long list.

Silly as this may sound, I am curious how you know this was never in their original plan.

Second, why did B6 make a big deal out of this? Its not like any other airlines were beating down the door trying to get these . By making a big deal of it, they invited attention, controversy, and legal problems.

It appears to me that B6 entered into the agreement with LGB very quietly and did not make a big deal of their entry or their plans. While there is less than 3 years track record to view, this does not appear to be their business style. Once into a market, they make their services known widely but I believe that saying they made a big deal of their entry is probably inaccurate. It would appear that the big deal was made by those other carriers who were not beating down the door to take advantage of those available 27 slots and suddenly faced a little competition in their playgrounds.



Ok. So I think LGB for JetBlue is a mistake. Will it sink the airline?Probably not. But I do think it has the potential for stunting growth in the near term, because now LGB is a problem that needs to be fixed. Rather than concentrate on what the next best opportunity for B6 is, they will be concentrating on how to fix LGB.

Let's let time tell the story on this one. The powers who be are obviously not sitting in a windowless room counting their change. In the short time of operation, B6 has built a very loyal customer base with over 60% repeat customers. Load factors are hovering in the low 90% range day in and day out. LGB is obviously another market that shows great promise for the company and without severely deviating from the 'original plan', the company is flexible enough, reality based enough and yes maybe a little aggressive in taking on a competitive market. My bet is that it was not done as a whimsical move but part of the carefully laid plan following in depth analysis and research which has allowed them to be a viable option in so short a period of time. By saying B6 is just another low cost carrier, you may be missing the full story. While seat pitch, cost, seat covers, IFE, etc. are all important, the thing that is happening here which is more than lipservice is that B6
does things a little differently. They listen to what the public wants and treat them to that with respect and not in a cattle car fashion.

Thanks for playing....[😉]

 

[Jeff G]

you will actually feel like your seat is pitched at 35 or more inches

Don't bandy words. The seat pitch at JetBlue varies from 32" to 34". Lowfare said the seat pitch at WN is 3" more. He issued a falsehood and I was correcting him. That's all.

"Actually feel" that it's larger is subjective and we would all have differing opinions. I'm glad you like WN's seating. JBLU's is similar. The difference is a matter of individual preference, but one is not notably superior to the other. Let's move on.

 

[lowfareair]

----------------
On 8/21/2002 4:43:43 PM


Lowfare, WN has 35" to 37" seat pitch? I don't think so. Stick to the facts.

BTW, you can carry a book or portable DVD player on JBLU, too, you know. The seats are a bit wider. There's no effective difference in creature comforts between the two carriers. The big difference is in assigned seating and IFE.

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

I don't think that it is possible in any way, shape, or form that B6 has 32-34" pitch. The charters carry 180(approx) in 29 inch pitch, so take out 10% of the seats(18) and add 11% to the seat pitch, and voila, a 162 seat A320 with 32" pitch, AVERAGE. I stand by my statements.

BTW: I'm thin and tall. I want legroom, and don't care about elbow room.

Combine it with a better FF program, and most people are set.

 

[BDLDFW]

And what if JB is successful in LGB-OAK/LAS? Would they still chase greener pastures in more transcons while cutting (or reducing) OAK & LAS?

 

[jj]

One thing about the LAS market is people will as long as the fare is right route themselves LAS-LGB-JFK-FLL.

 

[lowfareair]

----------------
On 8/21/2002 6:56:36 PM

you will actually feel like your seat is pitched at 35 or more inches

Don't bandy words. The seat pitch at JetBlue varies from 32" to 34". Lowfare said the seat pitch at WN is 3" more. He issued a falsehood and I was correcting him. That's all.

"Actually feel" that it's larger is subjective and we would all have differing opinions. I'm glad you like WN's seating. JBLU's is similar. The difference is a matter of individual preference, but one is not notably superior to the other. Let's move on.

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

JBLU's AVERAGE seat pitch is 32". I proved it above. Unless you'd like to show me where I'm wrong, or tell me how Jetblue flies larger A320s than the charter carriers, I stand by my statement.

 

[jbu320]

I seriously doubt any reductions will occur in the OAK market. LAS is another story that I believe everyone is interested in. While LAS may be in fact utilized to protect slots, my take is OAK is strategic to the continued expansion of transcon flying that the company finds most profitable considering the ever rising fees and costs of operations at JFK. IAD and OAK as well as FLL seem ideal to orchestrate the overflow of transcons without total overload in the JFK mkt.

 

[Jeff G]

JBLU's AVERAGE seat pitch is 32". I proved it above. Unless you'd like to show me where I'm wrong, or tell me how Jetblue flies larger A320s than the charter carriers, I stand by my statement.

Ah, jeez. No, your math was correct, but your conclusion was wrong. JBLU has 32" pitch on most rows, but the exit rows and bulkhead row are at 34" (or perhaps 35", I forget). Let's see: high density seating: 30 rows x 29" pitch = 870" cabin. JBLU: (3 x 34" = 102") + (24 x 32" = 768") = 870". Amazing! Same size and everything! Now tell me how you add 3" to 32" and get 33" to 34"?

This is getting pretty silly. We're not talking about MRTC or some such. These are coach seats and they're substantially alike. You like an inch or two forward of your knees. Some might like another inch at the hips instead. What are we arguing about, anyway? You exaggerated, I caught you, let it go. [:bigsmile:]