For those of you who don’t live in the LA area, the interview with Dave Barger I published last week is probably a distant memory. But for those living in this area, and especially those in Long Beach, this has become a very hot topic indeed. A couple nights ago, the city council got together to discuss the issue, and I found myself shaking my head more often than not at some of the reactions from the council.

First, let me refresh your memory. In my interview, Dave said that Long Beach needed to make good on its promises to build the terminal improvements and parking garage that have been in the works for years. I asked if JetBlue would leave the airport if that didn’t happen and he responded that he “wouldn’t take any option off the table.”

This didn’t spark much response from the community until the local newspaper, the Press-Telegram picked up on the interview. Soon, JetBlue had confirmed that the comments were reported accurately. The LA Times, local television news outlets, and USA Today picked up the story as well. That was enough to get things moving.

The frenzy reached a point where the city council took notice. Three councilmembers, including the Vice Mayor, added a recommendation to this week’s council agenda (PDF) to “request City Manager to report to the City Council with timelines on the Long Beach Airport terminal enhancement status including parking structure construction update.”

That set the stage for what ended up being an odd set of statements. You can watch it for yourself on the city’s video archive site (click on item 15 at the bottom left to skip ahead).

All of them at least paid lip service to the idea that they understood the frustration with such a lengthy delay, but some were more convincing than others. On one side, we had a group, including the Vice Mayor, that tried to extend the olive branch to JetBlue. They wanted to see the project move forward, and you could tell that they were feeling the frustration as well. I think councilman Gary DeLong said it best:

Hopefully everyone can agree that reality is this has taken far too long . . . . We have been in this nine years and we have yet to break ground on anything. We’ve had lots of process but very little results . . . . We won’t agonize over why it’s taken nine years but let’s see if we can’t make up for some of that long delay by getting this project off the ground.

Amen. Let’s not look back, but let’s just get things moving now. I couldn’t agree more. New Airport Director Mario Rodriguez was there, and he tried to stay above the fray completely by focusing on the importance of cost control. That is certainly something airlines like to hear, but these are conversations that should have been had long ago (not his fault, he’s brand new). He did say that meetings are being held again with JetBlue in New York in a couple of weeks. Just one little helpful piece of advice before you go, Mario . . . it’s Dave Barger, not “Berger.”

On the other side of the fence we found a more concerning viewpoint. Some councilmembers went on the attack, and more than than one thought it would be a good idea to attack the media, including blogs. Oh yeah, that’s constructive.

Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske said, “I do think that the reporting of the comment that was, by the way, leaked directly from somebody at JetBlue to the blogger and then sent directly to the Press-Telegram and the District Weekly . . . I think the reporting was irresponsible.”

Wrong. The comment was not leaked by anyone at JetBlue. I was invited to have a one-on-one sit down interview with CEO Dave Barger himself at the Phoenix Aviation Symposium (as were other media attendees at the conference). Everything you read came directly from him. In fact, once I turned my chicken-scratch into a transcript, I sent it to JetBlue to make sure I hadn’t mistakenly misquoted him. I didn’t, however, send it to the Press-Telegram or the District Weekly at any point.

Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga seemed to think that the issue was somehow less valid because it originated in a blog. “This is a blog, give me a break. If we start spending this much time on a blog, we’re really in trouble. So I would like to ask the Press-Telegram to go beyond blogness and get into real news stories. . . let’s stay positive.”

Mayor Bob Foster jumped on the bandwagon as well. “I agree. We should not take blogs as professional journalism. The professional journalists should take that as well.”

Is this a joke? It doesn’t matter if this was written on a bathroom wall. It came directly from the CEO of the largest airline at this airport. Does it really do any good to try to discredit blogs or traditional media in the process? No. It also shows that they’re quite out of touch with the current state of reporting. There are many reputable blogs and discrediting them with a blanket statement like that will most certainly not serve them well.

In the end, the most mind-boggling part of all of this was the hostility toward JetBlue for taking this out in to the media in the first place. It was none other than Mayor Bob Foster himself who closed the discussion by giving JetBlue a stern talking-to.

The one thing I would ask from everybody involved in this is professional conduct. . . . I would ask JetBlue, everyone from the CEO on down, let’s conduct ourselves as real partners, as real professionals. If you have a problem, if you have an issue, bring it to my office or bring it to a councilmembers office, don’t do it in the press. That serves no purpose and believe it or not . . . you probably have made this harder to finance . . . . It can be dealt with but it’s not the way to conduct business.

Does anyone believe that JetBlue would have taken this to the press if they were having success through other channels? I highly doubt it. The facts are this: It’s been nine years since this process began and no ground has been broken. The bulk of the discussion of substance last night centered around how to make this a fiscally responsible project. I understand the state of the economy puts this at the top of everyone’s mind, but these things should have been decided long ago. If that’s the type of discussion that’s happening right now, it doesn’t sound like something that is going to be ready any time soon.

I’d like to think that this little dust-up will at least spark something to happen, but watching the mayor and some of the councilmembers throw barbs last night hardly instills confidence. Hopefully it’s just grandstanding for the cameras, and the mayor and council have a different tune in face-to-face discussions with the airline.

In the end, the group did unanimously approve (except for the one absent councilmember) the motion to have the city manager report on the project. If I heard correctly, this should happen in early May, so there is some hope that this will receive renewed focus.

If you’re interesting in reading more, the Press-Telegram has a good recap of the meeting.

Welcome back to Part 2 of my interview with Dave Barger, CEO of JetBlue. If you missed Part 1 which discusses the problems in Long Beach along with the general product direction, then you might want to go check it out.

In Part 2, Dave and I talk about inflight wi-fi, big changes coming to the TrueBlue program, and some future international partnerships, including Lufthansa. Let’s get on with it.

Cranky: What about wi-fi? I know you have one plane, BetaBlue, with email and instant messaging, but what about a full broadband solution now that many other airlines are doing it?

Dave: We believe that narrow band [the BetaBlue product] is the model. We’re going to start a fleetwide campaign for narrow band by year end. But, if it makes sense for full wi-fi capability, we want to be able to respond. That being said, we believe narrow band included in the price of the ticket for the whole airplane is best.

Cranky: Do you like the narrow band product itself or is it just technically better for you?

Dave: We’re pleased with the product. For us, the product is TV, radio, and connectivity, not just wi-fi. It can also be a great tool for our crewmembers as well as the customer. It could be used for irregular ops. If we need a flight attendant to go to Rochester and overnight there, we will be able to email them on the plane. Then when they land, they can make a call to tell who they need to tell.

Cranky: Or they could just email them on the plane.

Dave: Yeah, exactly. As a quality of life application, it’s good.

Cranky: Let’s talk about TrueBlue. My wife and I were doing a fair number of flights to the Bay Area last year to prepare for our wedding. We flew JetBlue, but there was no way that I was going to ever reach an award with short haul travel, so I didn’t even want to sign up. The only reason I eventually did was because I wanted to use a credit from a changed flight online and I had to sign up for that purpose. Are you going to make changes to the program?

Dave: I totally agree that it’s not relevant right now. It’s interesting to hear your opinion, and I agree. It worked for its early life cycle, but it needs to change. We are going to roll out a new program in Q2/Q3. You can think of it as TrueBlue 2.0.

Cranky: Glad to hear it. Though I suppose it’s bad news for you that we flew you anyway and didn’t need the frequent flier credits.

Dave: No, these programs are important. They’re very powerful and we need to do better. Partners are an important piece of that. Can you accrue on Lufthansa? What about Hertz? These are important.

Cranky: What can we expect to see with the new program?

Dave: One of the biggest complaints we hear is that people say they can’t get seats. We do have a lot of availability, but people say they want last seat availability.

Cranky: Will you have last seat availability as a standard or will you be looking at tiered rewards like other airlines?

Dave: We believe we will have a best-in-class frequent flier program. It’s going to be very customer relevant.

Cranky: I know we’re running short on time, but really quickly I’d like to talk about partnerships. You mentioned on the panel today that you were seeing 100 passengers a day connecting into your network from Aer Lingus. That’s really surprising to me. What else might we see?

Dave: Partnerships with Lufthansa and Swiss are next. They’re strategic investors in JetBlue, and we will have partnerships with them. After that, well, I was serious with Ali [Al Rais of Qatar Airways] about doing something with Qatar [as mentioned on the panel today].

Cranky: Could we see some partnerships on the west coast, maybe with Asian carriers? I imagine that would have to go to LAX though.

Dave: Sure. The potential could be there for partnerships at LAX. We can’t do that in Long Beach, but there’s no reason two operations in the LA Basin can’t work for us.

Cranky: Thanks, Dave. Let me know next time you guys are out in Long Beach.

Dave: Will do. And congratulations on your wedding.

So there you have it. A Lufthansa partnership is on its way, and Dave really doesn’t see a need for full broadband right now. I’m not sure that I agree that the narrow band solution will be enough, but as long as they’re watching this closely and willing to change quickly, then they should be ok. I’m also glad to hear that TrueBlue is going to be fixed, because it really isn’t a compelling program as it stands today.

Again, if you missed Part 1, click here.

It was almost a year ago that JetBlue announced it would begin flying to LAX in addition to its main Southern California operation at Long Beach along with smaller operations at Burbank and Ontario. Once fuel started climbing, they walked away from LAX. But now, a year later, JetBlue is back and ready to begin flights to LAX. Should we bother to believe them this time?

I’d say yes, though if oil spikes again (HIGHLY unlikey considering the state of the economy), then all bets are off. But JetBlue has always wanted to do a better job of serving the LA area. They dropped Ontario last year, so until June, when the first LAX flights start, you’ll only see them in Burbank and Long Beach. That’s not really much coverage.

So LAX makes sense, and the airport’s traffic is so far down this year that finding a gate isn’t the toughest thing around. Unfortunately, they aren’t exactly picking routes that are lacking for competition. On June 18, the airline will start two flights a day to both New York/JFK and Boston. This low frequency is not in any way favorable compared to the rest of the competition in the market. It also doesn’t help that Virgin America only recently announced service from LAX to Boston. So there’s just a ton of service here already. Why are they going into this as the frequency laggard?

I suppose it goes back to the JetBlue strategy. They aren’t going for the business traveler here, and if they were they’d be slaughtered. They’re more interested in the leisure traveler, so this allows the airline to reach a greater audience than just at Long Beach and Burbank. Not a bad plan, but the overabundance of flights in those two markets will make it a tough sell.

There could be another reason here. Right now, JetBlue has more flights scheduled at Long Beach this summer than it has slots. So, there are going to have to be a couple of cuts. Could it be that they’re hoping to shift some people to LAX in order to cut back on long hauls from Long Beach? It’s pure speculation, but something has to give over there.

Either way, I tend to think that JetBlue will actually start LAX service this time around, but just in case, you may want to wait until it gets a little closer before booking.

Remember that whole strategy from LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa about airport regionalization? Well, it took yet another step backward yesterday with the recommendation of the Burbank airport authority to enact a hard curfew (via this excellent Airliners.net thread).

You can guess where this is coming from – the surrounding community. Thanks to their objections, the airport wants to prohibit any operations between 10p and 7a. Is that a horrible idea? Well, not entirely. We have one of those here in Long Beach, and it’s nice to have peace and quiet while we sleep. That being said, these are very different in that Burbank will have much stiffer fines. That’s bad news for travelers.

In Long Beach, airlines don’t pay a fine for violating the curfew until their third violation. At that point, they pay a whopping $100. Then each subsequent violation in a twelve month period will cost $300. (Read more) The Burbank fine, according to the Application (pdf), will cost $3,671 for the first fine, $7,342 for the second, $11,013 for the third, and $14,684 for the fourth over a twelve month period. If an airline has four violations, it’s banned from the airport for a year.

I know, you’re wondering what this has to do with you, right? Well, with penalties that steep, airlines will be less willing to schedule any flights near that curfew time at night for fear that they’ll miss it. Right now, there are a couple of flights scheduled to go before 7a and I think one after 10p. The night flights, even the ones before curfew, are most at risk, because if they’re delayed in the slightest, they won’t be able to land. Then early morning flights get in trouble because the plane that usually spends the night in Burbank ready to fly early the next day won’t be able to land until morning. That, of course, is dependent upon the airlines being willing to even schedule flights at those times with the potential penalties so high.

Probably even more annoying than having your flight not get out on time will be when you’re on a late arriving flight into Burbank. Let’s say you’re on the last flight from SFO and fog has delayed flights a couple hours. Well, that last flight would probably go if it were heading to Long Beach because the cost of violating the curfew isn’t prohibitively steep if it doesn’t happen often. (Honestly, it could rise some and still be ok.) At Burbank? Forget it. They’ll just park the plane or divert you to another airport instead. Great, huh?

My advice: If this curfew gets enacted, don’t fly into Burbank too close to the curfew. Fly to LAX instead. Not what the Mayor of LA had in mind, right? Well, he’s not exactly following his regionalization plan either. While Burbank is thumbing its nose at the that strategy, Mayor Villaraigosa is crowing about a new flight that he’s landed at LAX.

The new flight is on Korean Air. The airline will now fly from LAX to Sao Paulo, presumably as an extension of one of the daily Seoul/Incheon flights. Asian carriers that want access to the largest city in South America can’t fly nonstop (range problems) so they need to find a place to go first. JAL used to fly via LAX (I actually took the flight once), but now they go through JFK. So, Korean will now pick up the slack and try to make a go of it.

Now, Mayor Villaraigosa claims in the city’s press release that the flights are “a direct result of the Mayor’s 2006 trade mission to Asia.” Um, right. I really hope the airline isn’t sitting around saying, “Gee, you know I like that guy. How cool was it that he came to visit us? We should start a flight to Brazil from his city.”

So, what are the takeaways here?

• If Burbank enacts this curfew, don’t book a flight arriving there near the curfew for fear you may not get there in time
• If you’re flying to Sao Paulo from LA, congrats. You now have a nonstop option.
• Regionalization isn’t as easy as you (or the Mayor) might think

I’ve just survived what may possibly have been the first tornado warning I’ve ever endured living in LA. And yes, I grew up here. I’m not quite sure why they’d bother doing that because none of us have any clue what we’re supposed to do if there’s a tornado nearby. It’s not like we have basements here.

I swear I’m not just hear to tell you about the weather. I’m actually trying to figure something out, so hopefully someone can enlighten me.

The airports here have been operating in reverse configurations all day today (eg landing over the ocean and taking off over land at LAX). Here at home on the west side of Long Beach, that means we can see landings heading to runway 12 instead of the usual departures from runway 30. You know what? This isn’t going to make sense to 99% of you. Let me throw down a map here. We live west of the airport.

Anyway, I was out walking the dog a little after 530p when I saw an Airborne Express 767 fly overhead lined up for runway 7L. He throttled up and ended up going around before landing on 12. This seemed really odd to me, because I’ve never seen a large jet operate on those smaller runways. I’ve only seen them on 12/30. So, I went back and listened to the tower archives on liveatc.net to see what was going on.

Here’s the conversation that occurred:

ABX1753: Tower, Abex1753 Heavy, we’re trying to get on runway 12 here
LGB Tower: Abex1753, Long Beach Tower, runway 12 cleared to land
ABX1753: Cleared to land runway 12, Abex1753

Then a couple minutes later . . .

ABX1753: Are we cleared to land runway 12?
LGB Tower: Abex1753 Heavy, you’re lined up for runway 7L right now
ABX1753: Ok, we’d like to go around for 1753

Needless to say, the tower cleared him to execute a missed approach, and that’s what I saw. Now I’ll get to the point . . . how the heck does that happen?!? Shouldn’t an aircraft know with which runway it’s lined up? I mean, even a simple compass could tell you that you’re lined up at heading 070. Can someone explain this?