Where did the 6 new slots come from? The Press-Telegram says the new service brings the number of utilized slots to 41 (the maximum allowed), but I thought LGB was already operating at 41. So, who gave up slots? Was someone forced to?

As Carl said, 5 came from Alaska and 1 came from UPS. Alaska shifted its 5 flights to only 4 on Horizon CRJ-700s so they use commuter slots instead (of which there are plenty). UPS just cut from 2 cargo flights to 1.

Ron wrote:

Personally, I’d be happy to see FedEx and UPS disappear from LGB. I don’t see how it makes sense to have a cargo operation with so few planes when there’s a huge cargo base 22 miles down the road at LAX, and getting rid of the cargo planes would free up slots for more passenger service. Besides, those 767s and A300s are the noisiest commercial aircraft at LGB these days (though they still pale in comparison to the C17s and F/A18s).

It’s good to have UPS and FedEx here. We have over 500,000 people in Long Beach, and this gives people a later drop off time for urgent packages. I’m happy to see 1 from FedEx and 1 from UPS, but I’m glad UPS gave up the other slot. Besides, its nice to see the widebodies fly over around dinner time.

Ron wrote:

You know, one market that especially bugs me in this regard is LAX–NRT. There are 7 daily flights on 7 different carriers (Korean, ANA, United, Delta, American, JAL, and Singapore), and they all leave in a span of less than 3 hours (from 10:25 to 13:10), including 5 flights leaving within 25 minutes (11:35 to 12:00)!

I think there are a couple of good reasons that you missed here. One, the airport is heavily slot restricted, so most of the airlines on the route probably don’t have an option for a late flight. Two, and probably most importantly, there is a curfew at Narita until 6a. A midnight flight would block in at 450a, so that won’t work. You’d really have to have the flight leave at 2a to make sure that you missed the curfew (if you had a slot), and that’s a pretty awful departure time.

Jess wrote:

I much prefer a 757 or 777 from DEN to ORD on United. The 737 at southwest is a very cramped airplane.

That’s funny. Southwest offers 1 to 2 more inches of legroom than a United 757 or 777 and has the same width as a 757. The 777 is one inch wider per seat. I guess perception is everything, but I’d rather sit in coach on Southwest.

Ron,

Ron wrote:

Where did the 6 new slots come from?

IIRC, 5 came from Alaska and 1 came from UPS.

Good point on the operating one flight at the opposite time of the other guys one flight.

You know, one market that especially bugs me in this regard is LAX–NRT. There are 7 daily flights on 7 different carriers (Korean, ANA, United, Delta, American, JAL, and Singapore), and they all leave in a span of less than 3 hours (from 10:25 to 13:10), including 5 flights leaving within 25 minutes (11:35 to 12:00)! With a 12-hour flight and 17-hour time difference, this means all flights arrive in Japan in the afternoon/evening of the next day, wasting two business days (of course, you compensate for that on the way back, where you land earlier than you leave). This market seems like a great opportunity for a flight that leaves around midnight and arrives early in the morning, wasting just one business day. But nobody does that.

Compare this to TLV–NYC, very similar in terms of time traveled except for the international date line issue (12 hour flight, minus 7 hour time difference), where a typical day has a mix of day and night flights, though night flights are more common (Continental has one of each, Delta once nightly, El-Al twice nightly plus some day flights scattered throghout the week). Why the difference? I can think of a few reasons, but none of them seem like a good answer:

1. The international date line difference, though I really don’t see what this has to do with anything.

2. TLV–NYC is much more of an origin/destination market: there’s virtually no connecting traffic in Tel Aviv, and New York is a very popular destination, whereas LAX–NRT probably sees many connections on both ends. But I would think that a night flight is actually better for connections — flights from Tel Aviv to all other North American cities are overnight, in order to make use of morning connections at the destination hubs (I suspect PHL and ATL are mostly for connections, YYZ and LAX probably see more origin/destination). An overnight flight from LAX to NRT should allow for easy connections on both sides.

3. Los Angeles and Tokyo are separated by an ocean with very limited possibility for connecting flights (Hawaii is pretty much all there is), whereas a whole continent lies between Tel Aviv and New York with many connecting opportunities, all of which are day flights. I’m not sure why this would create a preference for night flights on the nonstop, though.

4. Cultural differences between Israel and Japan — not that I know which cultural factors affect the preference for day and night flights, but this can’t be ruled out.

5. Competition: on LAX–NRT each carrier has exactly one flight, so they have to choose the optimal time, whereas on TLV–NYC carriers can serve the second best timing without compromising their share of the top traffic. This still doesn’t explain why the preferred time is different on the two routes.

Anyway, going back to the topic of the post (sort-of), I’m still surprised that not a single carrier can make a profit by going against the majority trend and taking overnight traffic from L.A. to Japan (such service must be useful for some people). For the Michigan–Denver crowd, it’s good that they will have more choices.

Personally, I’d be happy to see FedEx and UPS disappear from LGB. I don’t see how it makes sense to have a cargo operation with so few planes when there’s a huge cargo base 22 miles down the road at LAX, and getting rid of the cargo planes would free up slots for more passenger service. Besides, those 767s and A300s are the noisiest commercial aircraft at LGB these days (though they still pale in comparison to the C17s and F/A18s).