JetBlue considering ISP

From Newsday.com:

Quote:

---

Long Island MacArthur Airport is on a short list of three as JetBlue Airways considers a new destination in the Northeast, officials said. As part of the sales pitch, airport and Islip Town officials Monday will join Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to announce the breakthrough at the Ronkonkoma airport, which operates about one-third its daily flight capacity. Schumer, who has a history of working with JetBlue, called the carrier's chief executive, Dave Barger, Friday to lobby on behalf of MacArthur...

The two other airports in contention have not been disclosed, but sources said they are both out-of-state regional airfields...

JetBlue will not tip its hand, but a spokeswoman acknowledged it plans an aggressive market expansion "throughout the Americas," and that MacArthur is a contender.

---

Full story at above link.

Good ol Chuck, glad to have him on our side here.

Oh how I hope one of the other contenders is PVD! I would love to see some JB tails flying into Providence. Plus, then if would be easier for me to fly them.

***YAWN***

My oh my how lovely that would be. Not that it matters to me, it takes me 20 mins to get from my front door to the L1 door most of the time at JFK.

To Only way I could see us opening up Islip is if we are looking to add new route from JFK. Moving some flights from JFK out there would free up some slots but from everything I've heard we would not do that unless we felt we had the demand for Long Islanders to use us out of Islip. Meaning we could fill a 320 or 190 consistently from there because what we don't want to do is make people from the city drive out to long island to catch a flight to MCO. I think if we do start service there it can only mean good things for the airline. Keep the growth coming!

Busdriver - I know you probably can't really discuss what your company is doing, but from a pilots point of view do you think that PVD could ever be a viable market for JetBlue? I know you guys have a few daily flights in and out of BDL, so do you think that since BDL and BOS have JetBlue service that PVD would probably not get considered?

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.

Unfortunately I think this is a lot of drum beating on the part of Chuck, Phil Nolan and the Airport. The news I have heard has been from them and not JetBlue. Southwest is going down to 18 flights and the airport is fighting for their lives but it may be too little too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emshighway

Unfortunately I think this is a lot of drum beating on the part of Chuck, Phil Nolan and the Airport. The news I have heard has been from them and not JetBlue. Southwest is going down to 18 flights and the airport is fighting for their lives but it may be too little too late.

---

Wouldn't be shocked...this has been the case with ISP for years...airlines build it up...and then down it comes. ISP has to be a huge disappointment for WN, its been a strategic failure having spent what they did for that terminal expecting to build the better mouse trap...

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.

I see ISP as a viable operation possibility personally. Looking at the news headlines made yesterday and the general response I feel like on Florida markets JetBlue would give Southwest a very serious run for their money with the VFR traffic. Just reading response in general to the articles all over the place, it seems like people would go east to Islip in favor of JetBlue instead of Southwest. People don't like the product Southwest puts out compared to JetBlue from my experince. I'll stay mum from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

JetBlue would give Southwest a very serious run for their money with the VFR traffic. Just reading response in general to the articles all over the place, it seems like people would go east to Islip in favor of JetBlue instead of Southwest. People don't like the product Southwest puts out compared to JetBlue from my experince. I'll stay mum from there.

---

This is a given but in the current climate it still is just a loser. I do see some chance to build on having some non stops to LAS which would be profitable but what other routes can B6 have year round to make it worthwhile?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emshighway

Unfortunately I think this is a lot of drum beating on the part of Chuck, Phil Nolan and the Airport. The news I have heard has been from them and not JetBlue. Southwest is going down to 18 flights and the airport is fighting for their lives but it may be too little too late.

---

I'm sure its been brought up in discussions on here before, but what ever happened to ISP? When I was growing up and would visit my grandparents in Islip, who's house was directly in line with the approach path for Runway 6, the traffic was pretty heavy. I'd say there was easily 8-10 flights an hour flying over their house. And the traffic was USAir, Delta/NW, Continental, USAir Express, American, United, and I believe I caught the tail end of the Eastern era. Why did everybody pull out of ISP? That could be a good little airport to spot at if they got some sort of variety and would fill it to capacity.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B6Busdriver

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

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!

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lijk604

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....

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Why are you hung up on the west coast thing?

---

People fly there.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Which guess what? THEY DON'T!

---

Well B6 has some interest.

Quote:

---

Speak English please....

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

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

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

"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..

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!

And we can now close this chapter.
______________________________________________
JetBlue unlikely to fly MacArthur soon

JetBlue Airlines, which had considered expanding to Long Island MacArthur Airport in Ronkonkoma, won't be flying out of the Suffolk County airport this year, the company's chief executive said Wednesday.

David Barger, president and chief executive, said a move to add flights to MacArthur is unlikely to happen in 2013, either.

Barger, speaking at the ribbon cutting for JetBlue's new corporate headquarters in Long Island City, said the airline's recent acquisition of flight slots at LaGuardia Airport in Queens means that the number of airplanes the airline has available to add more routes has dwindled.

"That impacts other places we want to fly to," Barger said.

At the end of 2011, JetBlue won an auction for slots at LaGuardia. Barger said the pricetag was $72 million.

Barger toured MacArthur in January with U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). Airport officials, with Schumer's help, have been trying to woo the discount-fare carrier to the airport.

While complimenting airport operators, Barger said JetBlue won't be setting up shop anytime soon at MacArthur.

"I don't believe we'll do it in 2012, and even 2013 is difficult," Barger said.

JetBlue on Wednesday took the wraps off its new headquarters, which will house nearly 1,000 JetBlue workers. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other politicians were on hand to cut the ribbon.

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/s...soon-1.3642816

And now we can reopen it, sort of
_____________________________________
Advocates reach out to Air Canada
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/n...nada-1.3649530
With confirmation JetBlue will not come to MacArthur Airport before 2014, local advocates are intensifying efforts to land Air Canada at the Islip Town facility.

The Long Island Association and the Jericho-based U.S. division of Purolator Inc., Canada's largest parcel and freight company, sent a joint letter last week to Calin Rovinescu, president and chief executive of Air Canada, urging him to set up a Long Island-Toronto route.

The letter, signed by Purolator president John Costanzo and LIA chief Kevin Law, pledges the "full support" of the Long Island business community. Purolator would benefit from reduced costs and added convenience if it could fly out of MacArthur rather than New York City, they wrote.

Air Canada executives could not be reached for comment.

Canada is the U.S. and Long Island's largest trading partner, Law said. New York State's two-way trade with Canada was worth $34.8 billion in 2011, U.S. Census data show.

MacArthur-Toronto air service also makes business sense for Air Canada, the letter says. The carrier would realize greater efficiencies in takeoff and departure timing flying from MacArthur's less congested airspace, cutting delay times and fuel costs.

"The arrival of Air Canada at MacArthur Airport would spur economic development, create jobs and offer convenience and new destinations for Long Island's families and businesses," Law said. Toronto is one of the largest international airports in Canada, with service to many European and Asian countries. It is also a pre-cleared U.S. Customs post.

MacArthur's own research shows 58 percent of international travelers in the airport's immediate catchment area of 1.8 million people already fly to Canada. (There are 2.5 million people within 40 miles of the airport.)

In October, two senior Air Canada executives toured MacArthur with town officials.

Afterward, officials were upbeat, saying Vijay Bathija, the airline's Montreal-based senior director of network planning, made it clear the carrier wants to establish its 60th U.S.-Canada route. In the Northeast, Air Canada flies to Boston, Albany, Rochester, Syracuse, Allentown, Pa., and LaGuardia.

MacArthur's bid to lure the Canadian carrier, however, could be complicated by Air Canada's reaction to its chief rival WestJet, aviation analysts say.

WestJet recently won eight takeoff-landing slot pairs at LaGuardia, and as a result, Air Canada may look to beef up its service from the NYC airport to compete, possibly delaying its decision on MacArthur.

Andrew Vasey, an Indianapolis-based aviation consultant, said, "As solid as MacArthur's business case is, sometimes airlines have to react quickly to their competition's moves, resulting in changes, even to their immediate plans."

Costanzo said 468,000 jobs in the United States are supported by the two countries' trading partnership, and his Long Island-based division's largest customers included Olympus, Motorola, Henry Schein and Canon, all large Long Island employers.

"Our saying is 'Purolator delivers Canada,' and so we support any company willing to join us to strengthen service on this hugely significant trade link between New York and Canada," he said

Likley to never happen. Year round flights would not make enough money to make a move there worth it. People will just go to JFK or fly WN to Florida to snowbird it.

As much as we'd like to see it, there is no business case for any airline with adequate rights at JFK or LGA to come to ISP, despite our promises to use it. Landing and use fees are very high, and you will note that Southwest came here and built it up when it couldn't (or wouldn't) go to LGA--now that this has changed, they don't need ISP any more. There just is not enough traffic. Although I would use it all the time, I am just one person....

I have discussed this with my friend in UA (then CO) management on a number of occasions, and he said the math just doesn't add up-yields would be too low, even with full loads.
He did say at one point they'd look again at the Q400 to IAD or CLE, but even now, with Colgan folding their Q service, that's out of the question.

Some up to reports of no rail service on the RonkOnkoma branch due to car crash.

And that Is why no reputable airline with a solid logistics and planning guy would not opt f

For service there. The rail service is not solid there.

Well, I guess service kind of has to be suspended when an unlicensed car driver drives onto the tracks and smashes the 3rd rail. That can happen anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankees368

Well, I guess service kind of has to be suspended when an unlicensed car driver drives onto the tracks and smashes the 3rd rail.


That can happen anywhere.

---

Really, you guess? Your sarcasm aside, it NEVER happens on the Babylon line. dual track and elevated. You could have better service run with a shuttle to the closest rail due south of MacArthur, which I believe is Islip, than on the KO(Ronkonkoma) line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirrodie

Really, you guess? Your sarcasm aside, it NEVER happens on the Babylon line. dual track and elevated. You could have better service run with a shuttle to the closest rail due south of MacArthur, which I believe is Islip, than on the KO(Ronkonkoma) line.

---

I do agree that the Babylon line is probably more reliable, but I hardly think that the LIRR would be the reason an airline would not start service at ISP. How many people really take the train to the airport vs. driving anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankees368

I do agree that the Babylon line is probably more reliable, but I hardly think that the LIRR would be the reason an airline would not start service at ISP. How many people really take the train to the airport vs. driving anyway.

---

My guess would be the same people that take the train to work and home everyday out on the island. Or at least a good chunk of those people. I'm sure the number is somewhere higher than you would think.