JetBlue considering ISP

[steve1840]

I've asked about PVD and have been told it's not on the radar. It was for quite some time before we started BDL but it was decided that BDL was far more underutilized. Plus CT has a very high contigent of Puerto Rican population which is where our focus is right now. I'd love to add PVD service its a great airport but I just don't see it happening.

I always thought that it would make a good stop for JB. But I guess since anyone living in the area has the choice to catch JB out of Boston or Hartford, there may not be a demand for a flight or two out of Providence.

And speaking of BDL being underutilized, do you ever see JB adding more flights to the BDL route? That airport has always had a ton of potentional, and when the finally demolish the old terminal building and rebuild it, there will be plenty of room for that to become a great airport. Hopefully when that time comes, JB jumps on board and fills more slots.

[steve1840]

All you really need are the snowbird markets at ISP to make it work. I think more people would choose ISP over JFK from easern Long Island if they were given the choice to fly Blue or Southwest. Let's face it, while cost is important, people are tired of jockeying for seats next to each other, cattle call boarding, and former Pan Am flight attendants in what amounts to almost tan boy shorts trying to be funny. Not to mention, no IFE etc etc etc.... JetBlue has a better product and by virtue of that alone if JetBlue came into ISP flying to places like MCO, PBI, RSW and TPA Southwest would quickly lose market share. Personal opinion but it seems that the public opinion mirrors my statement.

I gotta say that while I have never really had a problem flying SW and IFE doesn't really matter to me, I do prefer to not have to make sure I check in at a certain time to ensure that I can get a good place in line to get a good seat. So having said that, if I had the choice to fly on either airline (SW or JB) for the same price (or even an extra $10 for JB) I would pick JB. And especially since I more than likely on a JB flight I would get to my destination in at most two stops unlike SW most of the time lately.

[T-Bird76]

Without runway expansion ISP will never grow. It's that simple. Not to mention WN taking away good routes like a ISP-LAS NS doesn't make much sense either. Forces people like me or my folks to just drive the extra distance to JFK to get a flight without hopscotching the country. and needing all day for a 5 hour flight. ISP will just be a snowbird outfit.

Ah......the runway has nothing to do with it Nick...Where on earth did you drag that up from? The runway is equally the length of LGA's runways and can handle the same exact traffic as LGA currently accepts. ISP-LAS was a money loser for WN, it was filled with RR reward ticket holders and cheap fares while utlizing a plane for 5 hours, not at all within WN's busisness model. ISP's issue has been and always will be fees...its an expensive airport to use, landing fees, fuel, and hotels for crew. All much higher then comp sized airports

[NIKV69]

its an expensive airport to use, landing fees, fuel, and hotels for crew. All much higher then comp sized airports

We aren't talking about comp sized airports we are talking about JFK which has higher rent and landing fees. I also don't see the fuel or hotels being higher than JFK. Not to mention parking is much less at ISP than JFK.

ISP-LAS was a money loser for WN, it was filled with RR reward ticket holders and cheap fares while utlizing a plane for 5 hours,

Which is fine but if ISP wants to expand into more of an airport than just a snowbird base it would need some non-stop service to the west. Whether that is B6 or whomever. The whole expansion thing is a catch 22, you have people who want to expand yet an airline that doesn't want to fly non-stop over a few hundred miles unless it's the lucrative seasonal Florida thing. Can't work.

Ah......the runway has nothing to do with it Nick...Where on earth did you drag that up from? The runway is equally the length of LGA's runways and can handle the same exact traffic as LGA currently accepts

It's a stretch but some feel ISP can one day get global service. Many feel they are nuts but with the ever growing congestion at JFK a slight runway expansion could handle heavier aircraft.

[hiss srq]

The problem in this area with a city like Islip is that it will always be a purely VFR point to point market. A segment like Las Vegas is a very high risk market to operate considering that the yeilds are already going to be quite low to Vegas. The fact that you lose around 12 hours with turn time at ISP and LAS means it would operate one out and back for the day than be put to bed more than likely. I don't think Vegas would be a justifyable market from a place like Islip for any carrier barring Allegiant or Southwest who hub there. It just does not make sense economicly speaking. ISP is a great airport for point to point VFR markets with segment lengths of 3 hours or less. Most airline models cannot support more than a handful of flights to a place like Islip. The exception being maybe an Allegiant type operation. It's too far from the city to draw on them and Long Island has very specific travel prefrences generally speaking. Islip is essentally a geographicly doomed airport in that sense. PBI, TPA, MIA, FLL, MCO and maybe some MYR and ORD action are probably always going to be staples for that airport no matter who operates it. You cannot just look at an airport and say... 3 million residents, 30 persent of them are from PR, lets go to BQN and SJU.... It doesnt work that way, there is alot more that goes into the aircraft and route planning of an airline. Southwest's model has changed in terms of the way they grow and the way they want to operate airplanes tremendously in the last 3 to 5 years.

[T-Bird76]

We aren't talking about comp sized airports we are talking about JFK which has higher rent and landing fees. I also don't see the fuel or hotels being higher than JFK. Not to mention parking is much less at ISP than JFK.

Wrong!!
Nick while actual costs of landing may be higher than ISP when JFK fee's are amortized over a series of 400 landings a day filled with high yield passengers the cost per revenue seat mile is FAR lower than ISP.

Which is fine but if ISP wants to expand into more of an airport than just a snowbird base it would need some non-stop service to the west. Whether that is B6 or whomever. The whole expansion thing is a catch 22, you have people who want to expand yet an airline that doesn't want to fly non-stop over a few hundred miles unless it's the lucrative seasonal Florida thing. Can't work.

Why are you hung up on the west coast thing? Does LGA serve the west coast? Nope... Its a matter of choice of service and avability. ISP doesn't offer it and can't for the point I made above, its to expensive to operate! If their fees were more in line with similar airports we could easily see ATL, IAD, or ORD on the map.

It's a stretch but some feel ISP can one day get global service. Many feel they are nuts but with the ever growing congestion at JFK a slight runway expansion could handle heavier aircraft.

The airport can handle it now......! It all comes down to the COSTS!

[T-Bird76]

OH!!! The other issue is itself is JFK, LGA, and EWR and their location! Flights coming into and out of ISP have to fly AROUND and OUTSIDE of the of the NYC air traffic which guess what....burns more fuel. You combine all the suck of ISP why would an airline want to operate there? Which guess what? THEY DON'T!

[lijk604]

OH!!! The other issue is itself is JFK, LGA, and EWR and their location! Flights coming into and out of ISP have to fly AROUND and OUTSIDE of the of the NYC air traffic which guess what....burns more fuel. You combine all the suck of ISP why would an airline want to operate there? Which guess what? THEY DON'T!

Actually Tommy, here is where ISP has an ADVANTAGE. All flights going into JFK, LGA & EWR have to use the same arrival fixes into NY airspace. So when one gets backed up they ALL get backed up, hence airborne holds at low altitudes which means extra fuel burn. As for departures, again, JFK/LGA/EWR + TEB & HPN all use the same departure fixes. Again, one closes, and they all get backed up...delays on the ground, extra taxi time = extra fuel burns. ISP on the other hand, uses different arrival & departure fixes so their delays are minimal.

Don't believe me? Look at any JFK/LGA/EWR flight plan to FLL/MIA, they all either travel over WAVEY or WHITE intersection. Look at SWA out of ISP, they depart over BEADS, which actually routes them a slight bit East before going south. Time & fuel saved. So in effect, flying around and outside NYC Airspace is a plus, not a minus.

[T-Bird76]

Actually Tommy, here is where ISP has an ADVANTAGE. All flights going into JFK, LGA & EWR have to use the same arrival fixes into NY airspace. So when one gets backed up they ALL get backed up, hence airborne holds at low altitudes which means extra fuel burn. As for departures, again, JFK/LGA/EWR + TEB & HPN all use the same departure fixes. Again, one closes, and they all get backed up...delays on the ground, extra taxi time = extra fuel burns. ISP on the other hand, uses different arrival & departure fixes so their delays are minimal.

Don't believe me? Look at any JFK/LGA/EWR flight plan to FLL/MIA, they all either travel over WAVEY or WHITE intersection. Look at SWA out of ISP, they depart over BEADS, which actually routes them a slight bit East before going south. Time & fuel saved. So in effect, flying around and outside NYC Airspace is a plus, not a minus.

Speak English please....

[NIKV69]

Nick while actual costs of landing may be higher than ISP when JFK fee's are amortized over a series of 400 landings a day filled with high yield passengers the cost per revenue seat mile is FAR lower than ISP.

CASM is divided into all operating expenses not just landing fees. Operating at JFK is a bit higher than ISP so if you could keep the planes somewhat full at ISP you are in the ballpark.

Why are you hung up on the west coast thing?

People fly there.

Does LGA serve the west coast? Nope.

What does that have to do with giving people in eastern nassau and all of suffolk more options? I could give a rip about LGA.

ISP doesn't offer it and can't for the point I made above, its to expensive to operate! If their fees were more in line with similar airports we could easily see ATL, IAD, or ORD on the map.

They also haven't had the carriers interested in going to these routes. WN doesn't fly to ATL or O'Hare. If ISP wants to attract other carriers they have to address it.

Which guess what? THEY DON'T!

Well B6 has some interest.

Speak English please....

He did he debunked the myth that you burn more fuel flying into ISP

[T-Bird76]

CASM is divided into all operating expenses not just landing fees. Operating at JFK is a bit higher than ISP so if you could keep the planes somewhat full at ISP you are in the ballpark.

somewhat full???? Nick do you really think just because an airline fills seats it makes money? Nick its called economics of scale....and it doesn't exist at ISP.

People fly there.

Really? That's an eye opener..



[QUOTE=NIKV69;449568]What does that have to do with giving people in eastern nassau and all of suffolk more options? I could give a rip about LGA.[quote]
Nick the option is there now, that's the entire goal Southwest was attempting at ISP...it didn't work.

They also haven't had the carriers interested in going to these routes. WN doesn't fly to ATL or O'Hare. If ISP wants to attract other carriers they have to address it.

Nick do I have keep telling why they don't have carriers flying these routes? Because the cost of operating a 50 seat RJ from ISP to ORD four times a day is like taking money and burning it? Why do you think so many RJs are being pulled from service?

Well B6 has some interest.

Great I'd love to see them come but no way will they staff 800 or operate a focus city from ISP.

He did he debunked the myth that you burn more fuel flying into ISP

And even in that nice technical pilot talk he's wrong.... The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, flying east to go southwest doesn't say time or gas. The notion anyone could even say current NY air pattens saves airline fuel is simply laughable...

[lijk604]

And even in that nice technical pilot talk he's wrong.... The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, flying east to go southwest doesn't say time or gas. The notion anyone could even say current NY air pattens saves airline fuel is simply laughable...

Okay Tommy, in english...or better yet, numbers. These statistics are taken right from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics

JFK- Orlando Jan 1 - Mar 31, 2011....so we have 1 quarter of the year's worth of ACTUAL data.

Carriers Total Avg Dept Avg Taxi-Out Avg Sched Avg Arvl Avg Airborne Avg Taxi in TOTAL TIME
Flights Delay (mins) Delay (mins) Dept to Take-off Delay (mins) Time (mins) ENGINES RUNNING
ALL* 1,505 14.63 + 25.34 = 39.97 + 9.11 + 141.16 + 8.12 = 198.36 = 3.306 hours

ISP- Orlando Jan 1 - Mar 31, 2011
Carriers Total Avg Dept Avg Taxi-Out Avg Sched Avg Arvl Avg Airborne Avg Taxi in TOTAL TIME
Flights Delay (mins) Delay (mins) Dept to Take-off Delay (mins) Time (mins) ENGINES RUNNING
384 5.51 + 9.48 = 14.98 + (-2.55) + 147.56 + 5.77 = 165.76 = 2.762 hours -- 0.544 hours savings

Orlando-JFK Jan 1 - Mar 31, 2011....so we have 1 quarter of the year's worth of ACTUAL data.

Carriers Total Avg Dept Avg Taxi-Out Avg Sched Avg Arvl Avg Airborne Avg Taxi in TOTAL TIME
Flights Delay (mins) Delay (mins) Dept to Take-off Delay (mins) Time (mins) ENGINES RUNNING
1,504 16.46 + 16.19 = 32.66 + 12.88 + 124.59 + 9.54 = 179.67 = 2.994 hours

Orlando-ISP Jan 1 - Mar 31, 2011
Carriers Total Avg Dept Avg Taxi-Out Avg Sched Avg Arvl Avg Airborne Avg Taxi in TOTAL TIME
Flights Delay (mins) Delay (mins) Dept to Take-off Delay (mins) Time (mins) ENGINES RUNNING
385 13.83 + 9.63 = 23.47 + 6.17 + 127.04 + 4.53 = 161.20 = 2.686 hours -- 0.308 hours savings

So on the AVERAGE day, yes, you may spend 8.85 minutes LESS in the air on a JFK-MCO-JFK turn, however, with taxi delays, ground holds, etc...you actually save 0.852 HOURS on your aircraft engines running/day.
So, time saved? Yep! Over 30 mins going down and almost 20 minutes coming back.
Fuel saved? Hmmm engines turning 51 minutes less on these two segments per day? Sure sounds like it to me.

Oh, just so you can't claim I made any of this up....here is the weblink:
http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummary...ummaryBothData

[lijk604]

Why don't these messages format the same after I hit enter? I had all the data lined up! Very frustrating!

[T-Bird76]

"So on the AVERAGE day, yes, you may spend 8.85 minutes LESS in the air on a JFK-MCO-JFK turn, however, with taxi delays, ground holds, etc...you actually save 0.852 HOURS on your aircraft engines running/day"
Yep that's what I said...thanks for confirming it and thanks for confirming the airways around NYC are clogged making flights out of ISP take the long way around..

[hiss srq]

Tommy, while I agree with most of your arguements about why Islip will never be a valid growth point for any airline, the airspace and fuel burn statements are pretty correct when you take into account the fact that even on a perfect day operating at JFK, LGA, and EWR the airspace layout is such that you have to step climb, step descend and dog all over the place to get in and out of those three. Remember, less altitude means more fuel and trucking around at 230 knots at 8,000 feet uses more power and more fuel than doing 290 indicated at idle all the way from cruise to 10K etc etc... Bottom line, ISP is really the middle of no place, it's not feaseable even if it is an airspace efficent airport. Even if JetBlue winds up in ISP, I don't see the airline operating more than a handful of daily flights. That is IF!