Welcome to the JetBlue Network thread - 2024 edition.

Please continue to post your news and discussions below.

Link to previous discussion: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1480011

Today JetBlue launched a new blue city Tallahassee with a daily FLL-TLH flight. And also launched a new connect the dot route with a seasonal ORH-RSW. This route is operating 2 weekly at first and will move to daily sometime in February and basically run through the spring training season for the Boston Red Sox.

Hopefully ORH-RSW sees some strong demand and the season for this route can be extended for the full length winter season and will help see new routes come out of ORH as well.

If the Spirit merger goes through it will be interesting to see what happens. Will JetBlue dump some routes and cities or keep most of them.

doulasc wrote:If the Spirit merger goes through it will be interesting to see what happens. Will JetBlue dump some routes and cities or keep most of them.

They'e absolutely gutting NK's network to fill out B6 operations, that's the point of the lawsuit, if NK routes are not profitable at NK cost rates now they are not going to be profitable at B6's costs.

STT757 wrote:

doulasc wrote:If the Spirit merger goes through it will be interesting to see what happens. Will JetBlue dump some routes and cities or keep most of them.

They'e absolutely gutting NK's network to fill out B6 operations, that's the point of the lawsuit, if NK routes are not profitable at NK cost rates now they are not going to be profitable at B6's costs.

Those airplanes will probably go to whatever B6’s “10 years from now wish list” of routes are. I’m sure some will stay, but a lot of those airplanes will go towards growing a nationwide network.

And i wonder what NK hubs stay and which would go

Brianpr3 wrote:And i wonder what NK hubs stay and which would go

LAS is on the stay list, I would guess.

lostsound wrote:

Brianpr3 wrote:And i wonder what NK hubs stay and which would go

LAS is on the stay list, I would guess.

HP was twice the airline JetBlue is and had a long time hub in LAS. They eventually closed it. I'd love to be wrong but history says legacy/boutique carriers can't make LAS work.

Brianpr3 wrote:And i wonder what NK hubs stay and which would go

The only true "hub" Spirit has is at FLL. Even DTW isn't the connecting hub it once was. NK offers connections over their focus cities, but connecting on a ULCC like Spirit is dicey because a busted connection usually means you won't get to your final destination until the next day (or longer depending on frequency of service). I don't have a problem flying Spirit because I understand the product, and know how to work what I pay to my advantage. But I won't connect on them.

I don't see JetBlue opening a true "hub" after they acquire Spirit. Yes, I think FLL remains a true hub, and grows. WN pulled a lot of their connecting network up to MCO. Even if the Feds make FLL an issue, the combined carrier will be in a position of strength there for growth. The days of 3 way competition there is over.

But will they keep some of Spirit's larger stations as focus cities? I think they will. They'll look at what markets are the most profitable for NK and keep those. But its going to take a lot of marketing from B6 in the markets they decide to keep. Because a lot of the markets B6 will want to keep are other airline hubs, they'll need to explain why they are a disrupter, providing more for less then the big 4. It also means fast reconfiguring of NK cabins to JetBlue standard. I'd like to see JetBlue keep the Big Front Seat. But if JetBlue is going to convince customers in new markets to book, they can't get a Spirit cabin when they are buying JetBlue. I think B6 could keep the case to keep DTW, for example. NK already plays disrupter here. But it's a market with a lot of originating traffic. LAS is the opposite. It's all about finding homes for the new planes that will create best ROI.

TWA772LR wrote:

lostsound wrote:

Brianpr3 wrote:And i wonder what NK hubs stay and which would go

LAS is on the stay list, I would guess.

HP was twice the airline JetBlue is and had a long time hub in LAS. They eventually closed it. I'd love to be wrong but history says legacy/boutique carriers can't make LAS work.

JetBlue is much more a LCC than a boutique carrier/mainline carrier. Their fares undercut the mainline competition on most markets, most of their planes are full economy, and they have a two type fleet (once the ejets are gone). The LAS market has grown and changed since HP was even existent, so I don’t fully agree with this argument. I think B6 finding a niche there wouldn’t be that unthinkable.

TWA772LR wrote:

lostsound wrote:

Brianpr3 wrote:And i wonder what NK hubs stay and which would go

LAS is on the stay list, I would guess.

HP was twice the airline JetBlue is and had a long time hub in LAS. They eventually closed it. I'd love to be wrong but history says legacy/boutique carriers can't make LAS work.

Maybe I’m not getting your point, but HP had 140 aircraft in service at the time of the US merger. Are you referencing LAS flights, specifically? Because B6 is literally twice the size that HP was, and about to get much bigger.

lostsound wrote:

Brianpr3 wrote:And i wonder what NK hubs stay and which would go

LAS is on the stay list, I would guess.

See, I've been hearing exactly the opposite.

We'll see; it's definitely gonna be an "either or" for Chicago/Detroit, Houston/Dallas, etc... but the word I'm hearing is LAS is a non-starter. But plans can and do change.

JetBlue wants LAS. The company asked the pilot union for some relief on some base-related contractual restrictions in order to open a pilot base. The union said no. In short, the company (at the moment) isn’t able to produce pairings out of a LAS base that comply with contractual guidelines for trip lengths and composition.

December17 wrote:JetBlue wants LAS. The company asked the pilot union for some relief on some base-related contractual restrictions in order to open a pilot base. The union said no. In short, the company (at the moment) isn’t able to produce pairings out of a LAS base that comply with contractual guidelines for trip lengths and composition.

What types of pairings are they trying to create and what are their contractual restrictions for LAS?

PilotJAY16 wrote:

December17 wrote:JetBlue wants LAS. The company asked the pilot union for some relief on some base-related contractual restrictions in order to open a pilot base. The union said no. In short, the company (at the moment) isn’t able to produce pairings out of a LAS base that comply with contractual guidelines for trip lengths and composition.

What types of pairings are they trying to create and what are their contractual restrictions for LAS?

Not sure what pairings they are trying to create, however the contract specifies the trips need to be between 1 and 5 day trips and the mix needs to be a certain percentage of each trip length. I’d imagine that without new routes immediately as the base opens, the 1 day pairings are an issue. All you could do in a day trip is an LA turn with the current LAS flights. That’s not enough.

11C wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

lostsound wrote:
LAS is on the stay list, I would guess.

HP was twice the airline JetBlue is and had a long time hub in LAS. They eventually closed it. I'd love to be wrong but history says legacy/boutique carriers can't make LAS work.

Maybe I’m not getting your point, but HP had 140 aircraft in service at the time of the US merger. Are you referencing LAS flights, specifically? Because B6 is literally twice the size that HP was, and about to get much bigger.

Twice the airline as in better run and not overrun with problems. And back in that day Southwest, Allegiant, and Frontier weren't what they are today. If LAS was viable for a (since y'all didn't like 'boutique') more-than-LCC service carrier, one of the US3 would've made a hub there already, especially AA who should arguably have the most data on anything LAS of the US3 since they literally were HP.

I'd love to be proven wrong but outside of hub transcons and some key regional markets, LAS will shrink should the merger go through. Sure they may make a gallant effort to save the hub and have limited success, but history is against them.

B6 has been awarded slots for AMS S24

...The American budget airline JetBlue may continue to fly to Schiphol next summer season. Air India and fifteen other airlines are also allowed to continue flying (more). The slot coordinator has allocated all available summer slots for 2024 at Schiphol today, he reports to Luchtvaartnieuws.

Not only have all airlines with historical rights now received their slots, but most newcomers without historical rights, including JetBlue, have also seen their requests honored, provided there is a year-round operation to Amsterdam this year. Slot coordinator Hugo Thomassen confirmed this in conversation with Luchtvaartnieuws on Friday...

Translated from Dutch newsoutlet: https://reisbizz.nl/nieuws/jetblue-mag- ... n-vliegen/

TWA772LR wrote:

11C wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:HP was twice the airline JetBlue is and had a long time hub in LAS. They eventually closed it. I'd love to be wrong but history says legacy/boutique carriers can't make LAS work.

Maybe I’m not getting your point, but HP had 140 aircraft in service at the time of the US merger. Are you referencing LAS flights, specifically? Because B6 is literally twice the size that HP was, and about to get much bigger.

Twice the airline as in better run and not overrun with problems. And back in that day Southwest, Allegiant, and Frontier weren't what they are today. If LAS was viable for a (since y'all didn't like 'boutique') more-than-LCC service carrier, one of the US3 would've made a hub there already, especially AA who should arguably have the most data on anything LAS of the US3 since they literally were HP.

I'd love to be proven wrong but outside of hub transcons and some key regional markets, LAS will shrink should the merger go through. Sure they may make a gallant effort to save the hub and have limited success, but history is against them.

Well, that’s one opinion. Their 747 operation certainly paints a different picture.

Any idea if B6 may expand GUA this year? Seems like they upgauged GUA to an A321 fairly quickly. Would love to see FLL or MCO added.

FlyingHonu001 wrote:B6 has been awarded slots for AMS S24

...The American budget airline JetBlue may continue to fly to Schiphol next summer season. Air India and fifteen other airlines are also allowed to continue flying (more). The slot coordinator has allocated all available summer slots for 2024 at Schiphol today, he reports to Luchtvaartnieuws.

Not only have all airlines with historical rights now received their slots, but most newcomers without historical rights, including JetBlue, have also seen their requests honored, provided there is a year-round operation to Amsterdam this year. Slot coordinator Hugo Thomassen confirmed this in conversation with Luchtvaartnieuws on Friday...

Translated from Dutch newsoutlet: https://reisbizz.nl/nieuws/jetblue-mag- ... n-vliegen/

beautiful.

All that complaining from JetBlue worked out. Going forward, this probably allows them to be guaranteed year round service.

in terms of slot restricted airport, they basically are just waiting for more LHR slots

TWA772LR wrote:

11C wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:HP was twice the airline JetBlue is and had a long time hub in LAS. They eventually closed it. I'd love to be wrong but history says legacy/boutique carriers can't make LAS work.

Maybe I’m not getting your point, but HP had 140 aircraft in service at the time of the US merger. Are you referencing LAS flights, specifically? Because B6 is literally twice the size that HP was, and about to get much bigger.

Twice the airline as in better run and not overrun with problems. And back in that day Southwest, Allegiant, and Frontier weren't what they are today. If LAS was viable for a (since y'all didn't like 'boutique') more-than-LCC service carrier, one of the US3 would've made a hub there already, especially AA who should arguably have the most data on anything LAS of the US3 since they literally were HP.

I'd love to be proven wrong but outside of hub transcons and some key regional markets, LAS will shrink should the merger go through. Sure they may make a gallant effort to save the hub and have limited success, but history is against them.

Less problems?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html


JetBlue does want to open a LAS base they already asked the pilots but it didn’t not conform to the contract. I fully expect it to be a base if the merger is approved

JetBlue is not adding any new cities or routes within the United States.
I think right Now the merger with spirit pending. That's why everything is on hold right now.

PilotJAY16 wrote:

December17 wrote:JetBlue wants LAS. The company asked the pilot union for some relief on some base-related contractual restrictions in order to open a pilot base. The union said no. In short, the company (at the moment) isn’t able to produce pairings out of a LAS base that comply with contractual guidelines for trip lengths and composition.

What types of pairings are they trying to create and what are their contractual restrictions for LAS?

They have to be really $hitty for us to be allowed to fly them

fastmover wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

11C wrote:
Maybe I’m not getting your point, but HP had 140 aircraft in service at the time of the US merger. Are you referencing LAS flights, specifically? Because B6 is literally twice the size that HP was, and about to get much bigger.

Twice the airline as in better run and not overrun with problems. And back in that day Southwest, Allegiant, and Frontier weren't what they are today. If LAS was viable for a (since y'all didn't like 'boutique') more-than-LCC service carrier, one of the US3 would've made a hub there already, especially AA who should arguably have the most data on anything LAS of the US3 since they literally were HP.

I'd love to be proven wrong but outside of hub transcons and some key regional markets, LAS will shrink should the merger go through. Sure they may make a gallant effort to save the hub and have limited success, but history is against them.

Less problems?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html


JetBlue does want to open a LAS base they already asked the pilots but it didn’t not conform to the contract. I fully expect it to be a base if the merger is approved

That article is from 1994 so thanks for the history lesson. HP/US closed the LAS hub 15 years later.

That combined airline was much stronger and better off financially than today's B6. And also the NK merger is still in limbo. Until an approval comes around, LAS is still an NK hub and ULCC playground.

TWA772LR wrote:

fastmover wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:Twice the airline as in better run and not overrun with problems. And back in that day Southwest, Allegiant, and Frontier weren't what they are today. If LAS was viable for a (since y'all didn't like 'boutique') more-than-LCC service carrier, one of the US3 would've made a hub there already, especially AA who should arguably have the most data on anything LAS of the US3 since they literally were HP.

I'd love to be proven wrong but outside of hub transcons and some key regional markets, LAS will shrink should the merger go through. Sure they may make a gallant effort to save the hub and have limited success, but history is against them.

Less problems?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html


JetBlue does want to open a LAS base they already asked the pilots but it didn’t not conform to the contract. I fully expect it to be a base if the merger is approved

That article is from 1994 so thanks for the history lesson. HP/US closed the LAS hub 15 years later.

That combined airline was much stronger and better off financially than today's B6. And also the NK merger is still in limbo. Until an approval comes around, LAS is still an NK hub and ULCC playground.

Remind me which year did b6 enter bankruptcy? To sit here and say American west was some amazingly strong airline is quite the strech. Just say you don’t like JetBlue and be done with it.

fastmover wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

fastmover wrote:

Less problems?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html


JetBlue does want to open a LAS base they already asked the pilots but it didn’t not conform to the contract. I fully expect it to be a base if the merger is approved

That article is from 1994 so thanks for the history lesson. HP/US closed the LAS hub 15 years later.

That combined airline was much stronger and better off financially than today's B6. And also the NK merger is still in limbo. Until an approval comes around, LAS is still an NK hub and ULCC playground.

Remind me which year did b6 enter bankruptcy? To sit here and say American west was some amazingly strong airline is quite the strech. Just say you don’t like JetBlue and be done with it.

They left bankruptcy over a decade before they swallowed a much larger airline in one gulp. They did a lot of things right in between leaving Ch 11 and merging with US Airways.

In comparison, JetBlue are an operational nightmare that is perennially loss making, without any real plan to stop the bleeding if their merger with an airline that makes even larger losses doesn’t work out. Face it, JetBlue is a basket case.

fastmover wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

fastmover wrote:

Less problems?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html


JetBlue does want to open a LAS base they already asked the pilots but it didn’t not conform to the contract. I fully expect it to be a base if the merger is approved

That article is from 1994 so thanks for the history lesson. HP/US closed the LAS hub 15 years later.

That combined airline was much stronger and better off financially than today's B6. And also the NK merger is still in limbo. Until an approval comes around, LAS is still an NK hub and ULCC playground.

Remind me which year did b6 enter bankruptcy? To sit here and say American west was some amazingly strong airline is quite the strech. Just say you don’t like JetBlue and be done with it.

I have no opinion of B6 whatsoever. Never flown them or worked for them but I've only wished them success while still being pragmatic. And the poster above me is totally correct. Airlines come out of ch11 usually very strong and on a better path, B6 would be lucky to do a trip there given how bad their situation is, with or without the merger.

And as far as the merger is concerned, I'm pro consumer at the end of the day. This merger, should it go through, is not good for the consumer.

RyanairGuru wrote:

fastmover wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:That article is from 1994 so thanks for the history lesson. HP/US closed the LAS hub 15 years later.

That combined airline was much stronger and better off financially than today's B6. And also the NK merger is still in limbo. Until an approval comes around, LAS is still an NK hub and ULCC playground.

Remind me which year did b6 enter bankruptcy? To sit here and say American west was some amazingly strong airline is quite the strech. Just say you don’t like JetBlue and be done with it.

They left bankruptcy over a decade before they swallowed a much larger airline in one gulp. They did a lot of things right in between leaving Ch 11 and merging with US Airways.

In comparison, JetBlue are an operational nightmare that is perennially loss making, without any real plan to stop the bleeding if their merger with an airline that makes even larger losses doesn’t work out. Face it, JetBlue is a basket case.

Uh it wasn’t hard to swallow Airways heck there was a time Air Wisconsin helped bail out airways and even had 3 seats in the board all prio to the merger. Yeah AW merged with a nearly dead airways. And as you can see a fun trip through ch 11 helps. Ask almost any current airline.

TWA772LR wrote:

fastmover wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:That article is from 1994 so thanks for the history lesson. HP/US closed the LAS hub 15 years later.

That combined airline was much stronger and better off financially than today's B6. And also the NK merger is still in limbo. Until an approval comes around, LAS is still an NK hub and ULCC playground.

Remind me which year did b6 enter bankruptcy? To sit here and say American west was some amazingly strong airline is quite the strech. Just say you don’t like JetBlue and be done with it.

I have no opinion of B6 whatsoever. Never flown them or worked for them but I've only wished them success while still being pragmatic. And the poster above me is totally correct. Airlines come out of ch11 usually very strong and on a better path, B6 would be lucky to do a trip there given how bad their situation is, with or without the merger.

And as far as the merger is concerned, I'm pro consumer at the end of the day. This merger, should it go through, is not good for the consumer.

Would you prefer a much weaker spirit and JetBlue or a 5 th choice to the majors who are currently squeezing everyone thanks to the mergers that they did. It’s kind of hard to compete now unless you have the scale so pro consumer would support this merger. Or watch all the small guys slowly get crushed.

fastmover wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

fastmover wrote:


Remind me which year did b6 enter bankruptcy? To sit here and say American west was some amazingly strong airline is quite the strech. Just say you don’t like JetBlue and be done with it.

I have no opinion of B6 whatsoever. Never flown them or worked for them but I've only wished them success while still being pragmatic. And the poster above me is totally correct. Airlines come out of ch11 usually very strong and on a better path, B6 would be lucky to do a trip there given how bad their situation is, with or without the merger.

And as far as the merger is concerned, I'm pro consumer at the end of the day. This merger, should it go through, is not good for the consumer.

Would you prefer a much weaker spirit and JetBlue or a 5 th choice to the majors who are currently squeezing everyone thanks to the mergers that they did. It’s kind of hard to compete now unless you have the scale so pro consumer would support this merger. Or watch all the small guys slowly get crushed.

Everything (at least on paper) pointed to F9/NK being the better merger duo. It was predicted since the merger mania in the 2010s and was actually happening until B6 made a knee jerk reaction. That would have been your 5th. But if NK and B6 don't merge and both die, then AS/HA is your 5th (pending approval).

fastmover wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

fastmover wrote:


Remind me which year did b6 enter bankruptcy? To sit here and say American west was some amazingly strong airline is quite the strech. Just say you don’t like JetBlue and be done with it.

I have no opinion of B6 whatsoever. Never flown them or worked for them but I've only wished them success while still being pragmatic. And the poster above me is totally correct. Airlines come out of ch11 usually very strong and on a better path, B6 would be lucky to do a trip there given how bad their situation is, with or without the merger.

And as far as the merger is concerned, I'm pro consumer at the end of the day. This merger, should it go through, is not good for the consumer.

Would you prefer a much weaker spirit and JetBlue or a 5 th choice to the majors who are currently squeezing everyone thanks to the mergers that they did. It’s kind of hard to compete now unless you have the scale so pro consumer would support this merger. Or watch all the small guys slowly get crushed.

There is no guarantee that combining two loss making airlines is going to magically create a sustainable path to profitability, as opposed to larger losses. The ‘we need to be larger to compete’ is a bit of a gamble, as without a defined niche or point of difference you are just exposing yourself to additional competition across new markets in which you don’t have brand recognition or loyalty. I really don’t see how that is a winning strategy. If being big meant being profitable then EA would be here today.

For the sake of their people I hope JetBlue don’t take a trip through bankruptcy court, but I think that looks increasingly likely.

RyanairGuru wrote:

fastmover wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:I have no opinion of B6 whatsoever. Never flown them or worked for them but I've only wished them success while still being pragmatic. And the poster above me is totally correct. Airlines come out of ch11 usually very strong and on a better path, B6 would be lucky to do a trip there given how bad their situation is, with or without the merger.

And as far as the merger is concerned, I'm pro consumer at the end of the day. This merger, should it go through, is not good for the consumer.

Would you prefer a much weaker spirit and JetBlue or a 5 th choice to the majors who are currently squeezing everyone thanks to the mergers that they did. It’s kind of hard to compete now unless you have the scale so pro consumer would support this merger. Or watch all the small guys slowly get crushed.

There is no guarantee that combining two loss making airlines is going to magically create a sustainable path to profitability, as opposed to larger losses. The ‘we need to be larger to compete’ is a bit of a gamble, as without a defined niche or point of difference you are just exposing yourself to additional competition across new markets in which you don’t have brand recognition or loyalty. I really don’t see how that is a winning strategy. If being big meant being profitable then EA would be here today.

For the sake of their people I hope JetBlue don’t take a trip through bankruptcy court, but I think that looks increasingly likely.

I’m pretty sure JetBlue has had a “niche” and everyone on here said you need to get out of that and be a more National airline so here we are. They absolutely need scale and they need a larger network. That can be done in two ways growth (fast or slow) or you buy someone. The board went with buy someone. I’m not saying big automatically means profitable but it can sure help with a network and other things. Obviously the current JetBlue is getting squeezed so they needed to do something. You don’t agree that’s fine we will see.

Don’t forget the combination of two airlines that lost money can work look at all of the previous mergers. So I don’t see what this is some automatic fail.

TWA772LR wrote:

fastmover wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:I have no opinion of B6 whatsoever. Never flown them or worked for them but I've only wished them success while still being pragmatic. And the poster above me is totally correct. Airlines come out of ch11 usually very strong and on a better path, B6 would be lucky to do a trip there given how bad their situation is, with or without the merger.

And as far as the merger is concerned, I'm pro consumer at the end of the day. This merger, should it go through, is not good for the consumer.

Would you prefer a much weaker spirit and JetBlue or a 5 th choice to the majors who are currently squeezing everyone thanks to the mergers that they did. It’s kind of hard to compete now unless you have the scale so pro consumer would support this merger. Or watch all the small guys slowly get crushed.

Everything (at least on paper) pointed to F9/NK being the better merger duo. It was predicted since the merger mania in the 2010s and was actually happening until B6 made a knee jerk reaction. That would have been your 5th. But if NK and B6 don't merge and both die, then AS/HA is your 5th (pending approval).

Well that’s not the current merger so there is no point going on and on about it. JetBlue did what it felt it needed to do to grow and survive and they put the money out there. It is what it is (pending approval)

We will see a lot of changes at JetBlue with a new Sheriff in town.

At one point AUS and SLC were getting a ton of attention from B6. You could argue both were borderline focus cities. Why didn’t they work out?

mesasurf wrote:At one point AUS and SLC were getting a ton of attention from B6. You could argue both were borderline focus cities. Why didn’t they work out?

For SLC, they'd be crushed by a certain airline named Delta. For AUS, I guess they didn't see the potential of the surrounding metro yet.

mesasurf wrote:At one point AUS and SLC were getting a ton of attention from B6. You could argue both were borderline focus cities. Why didn’t they work out?

As was IAD.

Things change

RyanairGuru wrote:

fastmover wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:I have no opinion of B6 whatsoever. Never flown them or worked for them but I've only wished them success while still being pragmatic. And the poster above me is totally correct. Airlines come out of ch11 usually very strong and on a better path, B6 would be lucky to do a trip there given how bad their situation is, with or without the merger.

And as far as the merger is concerned, I'm pro consumer at the end of the day. This merger, should it go through, is not good for the consumer.

Would you prefer a much weaker spirit and JetBlue or a 5 th choice to the majors who are currently squeezing everyone thanks to the mergers that they did. It’s kind of hard to compete now unless you have the scale so pro consumer would support this merger. Or watch all the small guys slowly get crushed.

There is no guarantee that combining two loss making airlines is going to magically create a sustainable path to profitability, as opposed to larger losses. The ‘we need to be larger to compete’ is a bit of a gamble, as without a defined niche or point of difference you are just exposing yourself to additional competition across new markets in which you don’t have brand recognition or loyalty. I really don’t see how that is a winning strategy. If being big meant being profitable then EA would be here today.

For the sake of their people I hope JetBlue don’t take a trip through bankruptcy court, but I think that looks increasingly likely.

This argument that combining the money losing spirit and money losing JetBlue is equal to a bigger losing money company is the folly of those who don’t understand airline business. The spirit model is failing as is the ulcc and also, albeit to a little lesser extend the llc which JetBlue is. The new JetBlue needs spirit resources, not the business model of spirit. They will have scale, say bye bye to all economy seating and add fleet wide premium offering from rumors I hear. They are about to add lounges and eventually move into wide body fleet. Now this is the airline they need to compete with the likes of dl/ua/aa. Spirit is providing the resources not the business model.

Abeam79 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

fastmover wrote:

Would you prefer a much weaker spirit and JetBlue or a 5 th choice to the majors who are currently squeezing everyone thanks to the mergers that they did. It’s kind of hard to compete now unless you have the scale so pro consumer would support this merger. Or watch all the small guys slowly get crushed.

There is no guarantee that combining two loss making airlines is going to magically create a sustainable path to profitability, as opposed to larger losses. The ‘we need to be larger to compete’ is a bit of a gamble, as without a defined niche or point of difference you are just exposing yourself to additional competition across new markets in which you don’t have brand recognition or loyalty. I really don’t see how that is a winning strategy. If being big meant being profitable then EA would be here today.

For the sake of their people I hope JetBlue don’t take a trip through bankruptcy court, but I think that looks increasingly likely.

This argument that combining the money losing spirit and money losing JetBlue is equal to a bigger losing money company is the folly of those who don’t understand airline business. The spirit model is failing as is the ulcc and also, albeit to a little lesser extend the llc which JetBlue is. The new JetBlue needs spirit resources, not the business model of spirit. They will have scale, say bye bye to all economy seating and add fleet wide premium offering from rumors I hear. They are about to add lounges and eventually move into wide body fleet. Now this is the airline they need to compete with the likes of dl/ua/aa. Spirit is providing the resources not the business model.

We all know it's for resources but the feds are having to look at it from a consumer protection standpoint. Eliminating a whole ULCC just for resources is why this case happened and why the judge is taking a long time to rule. Fares are going to rise as a result of the merger and the feds don't want that.

TWA772LR wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:
There is no guarantee that combining two loss making airlines is going to magically create a sustainable path to profitability, as opposed to larger losses. The ‘we need to be larger to compete’ is a bit of a gamble, as without a defined niche or point of difference you are just exposing yourself to additional competition across new markets in which you don’t have brand recognition or loyalty. I really don’t see how that is a winning strategy. If being big meant being profitable then EA would be here today.

For the sake of their people I hope JetBlue don’t take a trip through bankruptcy court, but I think that looks increasingly likely.

This argument that combining the money losing spirit and money losing JetBlue is equal to a bigger losing money company is the folly of those who don’t understand airline business. The spirit model is failing as is the ulcc and also, albeit to a little lesser extend the llc which JetBlue is. The new JetBlue needs spirit resources, not the business model of spirit. They will have scale, say bye bye to all economy seating and add fleet wide premium offering from rumors I hear. They are about to add lounges and eventually move into wide body fleet. Now this is the airline they need to compete with the likes of dl/ua/aa. Spirit is providing the resources not the business model.

We all know it's for resources but the feds are having to look at it from a consumer protection standpoint. Eliminating a whole ULCC just for resources is why this case happened and why the judge is taking a long time to rule. Fares are going to rise as a result of the merger and the feds don't want that.

Fares are going to rise regardless, again, spirit, and frontier and any ulcc are not making money and they said they have to raise fares in order not to keep losing money. What good is the intent of the feds to protect the consumer if this continues they all go out of business, and guess what, fares still go up cause of truly less competitive environment. If the feds really care, they should bring the big 3 and wn to court and each divest assets. Beyond that this lawsuit is a joke and all theatre.

Abeam79 wrote:They are about to add lounges and eventually move into wide body fleet. Now this is the airline they need to compete with the likes of dl/ua/aa. Spirit is providing the resources not the business model.

Agree. I’m hearing domestic first class; though widebodies will be farther down the line. I think mgmt is well aware that they need to grow the premium side of the business, and once they have the jets and people they can do that. Jetblue’s not gonna be stuck in a rut wondering why it doesn’t make money for much longer, I don’t think.

Abeam79 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:This argument that combining the money losing spirit and money losing JetBlue is equal to a bigger losing money company is the folly of those who don’t understand airline business. The spirit model is failing as is the ulcc and also, albeit to a little lesser extend the llc which JetBlue is. The new JetBlue needs spirit resources, not the business model of spirit. They will have scale, say bye bye to all economy seating and add fleet wide premium offering from rumors I hear. They are about to add lounges and eventually move into wide body fleet. Now this is the airline they need to compete with the likes of dl/ua/aa. Spirit is providing the resources not the business model.

We all know it's for resources but the feds are having to look at it from a consumer protection standpoint. Eliminating a whole ULCC just for resources is why this case happened and why the judge is taking a long time to rule. Fares are going to rise as a result of the merger and the feds don't want that.

Fares are going to rise regardless, again, spirit, and frontier and any ulcc are not making money and they said they have to raise fares in order not to keep losing money. What good is the intent of the feds to protect the consumer if this continues they all go out of business, and guess what, fares still go up cause of truly less competitive environment. If the feds really care, they should bring the big 3 and wn to court and each divest assets. Beyond that this lawsuit is a joke and all theatre.

What you're proposing for the US3 is anti-capitalistic and something the feds have no business in doing. It wasn't too long ago when the US3 were getting their butts kicked and the (U)LCCs were thriving. It's just a cycle we're in. There is no evidence that the (U)LCC model as a whole is going to go extinct, it's just their turn in the doldrums.

TWA772LR wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:We all know it's for resources but the feds are having to look at it from a consumer protection standpoint. Eliminating a whole ULCC just for resources is why this case happened and why the judge is taking a long time to rule. Fares are going to rise as a result of the merger and the feds don't want that.

Fares are going to rise regardless, again, spirit, and frontier and any ulcc are not making money and they said they have to raise fares in order not to keep losing money. What good is the intent of the feds to protect the consumer if this continues they all go out of business, and guess what, fares still go up cause of truly less competitive environment. If the feds really care, they should bring the big 3 and wn to court and each divest assets. Beyond that this lawsuit is a joke and all theatre.

What you're proposing for the US3 is anti-capitalistic and something the feds have no business in doing. It wasn't too long ago when the US3 were getting their butts kicked and the (U)LCCs were thriving. It's just a cycle we're in. There is no evidence that the (U)LCC model as a whole is going to go extinct, it's just their turn in the doldrums.

So it’s your position that the federal government was correct in allowing all previous mergers (which gave us the big 3), notwithstanding the potential harm to consumers, but would also be correct in suing to stop JetBlue and Spirit from merging, based on the idea that it would harm some consumers? And, this is somehow detrimental to the so-called ULCC segment of the industry, which the government now has a role in protecting? It sounds like the governments role, in your opinion, would be to allow these big airlines to control a large majority of U.S. domestic flying, (not to mention, control most international flying through JV’s) and then to encourage startups to nip at their heels to keep the behemoths somewhat under control with regards to pricing. Isn’t that essentially the government picking the winners and losers? We know that size matters in this industry. I’ve heard the argument that previous mergers don’t matter, legally, or otherwise, but that is so obviously nonsensical that I can’t take it seriously.

11C wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:Fares are going to rise regardless, again, spirit, and frontier and any ulcc are not making money and they said they have to raise fares in order not to keep losing money. What good is the intent of the feds to protect the consumer if this continues they all go out of business, and guess what, fares still go up cause of truly less competitive environment. If the feds really care, they should bring the big 3 and wn to court and each divest assets. Beyond that this lawsuit is a joke and all theatre.

What you're proposing for the US3 is anti-capitalistic and something the feds have no business in doing. It wasn't too long ago when the US3 were getting their butts kicked and the (U)LCCs were thriving. It's just a cycle we're in. There is no evidence that the (U)LCC model as a whole is going to go extinct, it's just their turn in the doldrums.

So it’s your position that the federal government was correct in allowing all previous mergers (which gave us the big 3), notwithstanding the potential harm to consumers, but would also be correct in suing to stop JetBlue and Spirit from merging, based on the idea that it would harm some consumers? And, this is somehow detrimental to the so-called ULCC segment of the industry, which the government now has a role in protecting? It sounds like the governments role, in your opinion, would be to allow these big airlines to control a large majority of U.S. domestic flying, (not to mention, control most international flying through JV’s) and then to encourage startups to nip at their heels to keep the behemoths somewhat under control with regards to pricing. Isn’t that essentially the government picking the winners and losers? We know that size matters in this industry. I’ve heard the argument that previous mergers don’t matter, legally, or otherwise, but that is so obviously nonsensical that I can’t take it seriously.

But the Feds shouldn't be in the business of supporting money losing ventures because they may or may not be good to consumers. If the ULCC business model can't turn a profit in the long run it doesn't deserve to be around. No company owes "consumers" the cost of their product below their cost to deliver it.

N766UA wrote:

lostsound wrote:

Brianpr3 wrote:And i wonder what NK hubs stay and which would go

LAS is on the stay list, I would guess.

See, I've been hearing exactly the opposite.

We'll see; it's definitely gonna be an "either or" for Chicago/Detroit, Houston/Dallas, etc... but the word I'm hearing is LAS is a non-starter. But plans can and do change.

I am biased, but my argument for DTW to stay is that they want to compete with DL more than anything. If they keep DTW, “overnight” they can walk into one of their hubs and have 150 crews, 8-9 gates(including int’l) and a maintenance hangar, turn key. You can’t do that at any other legacies hub across the network. 3-4 gates tops, outside of LAS.

11C wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:Fares are going to rise regardless, again, spirit, and frontier and any ulcc are not making money and they said they have to raise fares in order not to keep losing money. What good is the intent of the feds to protect the consumer if this continues they all go out of business, and guess what, fares still go up cause of truly less competitive environment. If the feds really care, they should bring the big 3 and wn to court and each divest assets. Beyond that this lawsuit is a joke and all theatre.

What you're proposing for the US3 is anti-capitalistic and something the feds have no business in doing. It wasn't too long ago when the US3 were getting their butts kicked and the (U)LCCs were thriving. It's just a cycle we're in. There is no evidence that the (U)LCC model as a whole is going to go extinct, it's just their turn in the doldrums.

So it’s your position that the federal government was correct in allowing all previous mergers (which gave us the big 3), notwithstanding the potential harm to consumers, but would also be correct in suing to stop JetBlue and Spirit from merging, based on the idea that it would harm some consumers? And, this is somehow detrimental to the so-called ULCC segment of the industry, which the government now has a role in protecting? It sounds like the governments role, in your opinion, would be to allow these big airlines to control a large majority of U.S. domestic flying, (not to mention, control most international flying through JV’s) and then to encourage startups to nip at their heels to keep the behemoths somewhat under control with regards to pricing. Isn’t that essentially the government picking the winners and losers? We know that size matters in this industry. I’ve heard the argument that previous mergers don’t matter, legally, or otherwise, but that is so obviously nonsensical that I can’t take it seriously.

Do you honestly believe B6 would fly ALL of NKs routes AND offer the same amount of seats on those routes? That is what will hurt consumers.

The big 3 mergers really did make a more competitive landscape even not taking the (U)LCCs in to account. You can fly the US3 on over 90% of city pairs and each would compete with the other through their respective hubs while still fighting for the same customer.

TWA772LR wrote:

11C wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:What you're proposing for the US3 is anti-capitalistic and something the feds have no business in doing. It wasn't too long ago when the US3 were getting their butts kicked and the (U)LCCs were thriving. It's just a cycle we're in. There is no evidence that the (U)LCC model as a whole is going to go extinct, it's just their turn in the doldrums.

So it’s your position that the federal government was correct in allowing all previous mergers (which gave us the big 3), notwithstanding the potential harm to consumers, but would also be correct in suing to stop JetBlue and Spirit from merging, based on the idea that it would harm some consumers? And, this is somehow detrimental to the so-called ULCC segment of the industry, which the government now has a role in protecting? It sounds like the governments role, in your opinion, would be to allow these big airlines to control a large majority of U.S. domestic flying, (not to mention, control most international flying through JV’s) and then to encourage startups to nip at their heels to keep the behemoths somewhat under control with regards to pricing. Isn’t that essentially the government picking the winners and losers? We know that size matters in this industry. I’ve heard the argument that previous mergers don’t matter, legally, or otherwise, but that is so obviously nonsensical that I can’t take it seriously.

Do you honestly believe B6 would fly ALL of NKs routes AND offer the same amount of seats on those routes? That is what will hurt consumers.

The big 3 mergers really did make a more competitive landscape even not taking the (U)LCCs in to account. You can fly the US3 on over 90% of city pairs and each would compete with the other through their respective hubs while still fighting for the same customer.

That sounds very good, but if I go do Dulles to buy a ticket, what are my options? United. There is no real competition there. Not even Southwest has managed anything other than a token presence there. And that is competition? Sounds good, but it isn’t reality.

doulasc wrote:We will see a lot of changes at JetBlue with a new Sheriff in town.

The "new" sheriff is at JetBlue for more than 20 years and is the COO since 2018. I'm not sure if we'll see substantial shifts in the business model

N766UA wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:They are about to add lounges and eventually move into wide body fleet. Now this is the airline they need to compete with the likes of dl/ua/aa. Spirit is providing the resources not the business model.

Agree. I’m hearing domestic first class; though widebodies will be farther down the line. I think mgmt is well aware that they need to grow the premium side of the business, and once they have the jets and people they can do that. Jetblue’s not gonna be stuck in a rut wondering why it doesn’t make money for much longer, I don’t think.

I think this is very correct. They have learned from the big guys you need to diversify. You need a larger network, you need more international to help when domestic is bad and vice-versa you need different seating to apply to everyone’s needs or wants. If basic economy is dead because of the economy most likely premium is still there as those types of passangers are not impacted yet. And so on. The old days of JetBlue where everyone is equal (passenger wise are over)
What worked in 2000 does not work in 2024