Cranky on the Web (May 5 – 10)

May 11, 2013

More Reading on This Topic: ONT – Ontario

Financial incentive plan could boost flights at ONT – Daily Breeze
Ontario is trying to woo traffic now, and I was asked to comment. This is quite the reactive response from LAWA to stave off an effort by locals to take control of the airport. It shouldn’t make a difference.

In the Trenches: The Value of Face Time – Intuit Small Business Blog
Though we’re a virtual organization, there is definitely some value to getting together in person.

Flying with an Infant: Demystifying the FAA’s Confusing Rules – Conde Nast Daily Traveler
The FAA rules are surprisingly vague on traveling with an infant. I try to break it down the best I can here.

Brett

5 responses to “Cranky on the Web (May 5 – 10)”

Ed

May 11, 2013 at 10:35 am

Paul Bowers of the Airport Improvement News blog recently wrote about mis-named airports, and I responded to him, quoting ONT as a glaring example. His response is correct – there are in reality two problems, one being the name, and the second being the ownership.

I’m surprised that someone thinks that a quick shot of “marketing money” will fix what is in reality a long-term problem.

Until someone is willing to resolve the ownership issue, the name won’t be changed, and until the name is changed “Ontario” will continue to be known by most people outside of S. California as a Canadian province.

Rgds

Ed

From: EJ Jacob
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:12 PM
To: Paul Bowers
Subject: Re: Airport Improvement Weekly e-News: April 16th, 2013

Paul,

Just reading your post about airport names…..

In my view the glaring example of a mis-named airport to me is Ontario!

As far as I’m aware, if you are not from Southern California, you assume that Ontario is a Canadian province, and the airport must be associated with that province!

I fail to understand why the powers-that-be don’t recognize this – and change the name of the airport! Is LAWA afraid that it might pull traffic from over-crowded LAX?

In 2006 the airport name was changed to add in the words “LA” – which recognizes the problem, but does nothing to fix it.

Los Angeles is unlikely to give up ownership of the airport since they have such an inflated value in mind for it, and the City of Ontario clearly have a far lower value in mind.

Since there is a conflict of interest in running two competing airports, perhaps there is a mechanism for separating them, giving ONT to a separate authority, and introducing real competition into an area that badly needs it?

Rgds

Ed Jacob

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Paul Bowers
May 7 (4 days ago)

to EJ
Thanks for reading Ed. What you?re bringing up is actually two good issues, name and ownership. I think you?re just scratching the surface and that there are a number of other good examples like the one you bring up at Ontario (CA).

Best regards,
Paul

Reply
David SF eastbay

May 11, 2013 at 5:32 pm

I still don’t understand why ONT has had such problems all these years. It’s not like it’s in the middle of nowhere with no one living around it.

If they were away from the same body responsible for LAX, they may do better at getting more business.

Reply
1. CF
  
  May 13, 2013 at 8:27 am
  
  David – Ontario isn’t in the middle of nowhere, but Jim is right that it’s not in the most desirable economic region either. That may change over time, but it’s just not the first choice for an airline looking to serve the LA area. So, what can sway that? Low cost carriers might think twice about it if the costs are lower, but as of now, they’re HIGHER than LAX. (That will change thanks to LAX’s ill-advised spending spree lately.) But, if Ontario’s costs were lower, JetBlue probably never would have come to Long Beach. And maybe airlines like Allegiant would be more interested.
  
  Reply
David SF eastbay

May 11, 2013 at 5:35 pm

Good story about flying with infants and the example of the F/A giving the wrong info. That is so common in business these days as the last people who know rules and regulations are the ones enforcing the rules and regulations.

When flying one needs to do their homework ahead of time and print out airline and federal rules and pull them out when needed to show when issues pop up.

Reply
Jim

May 11, 2013 at 11:53 pm

I really don’t think that “local control” is going to make any difference. SNA is in a wealthy area where people don’t want to drive to LAX. BUR serves downtown LA and Hollywood for short-haul business traffic. ONT is not in a particularly rich or economically significant region, so convincing people to fly there when LAX offers far more options is going to be difficult.

Reply