Reaction to JetBlue statement on 8-1 vote

About JetBlue’s Senior Vice President Rob Land's comment in today’s Press- Telegram

We love JetBlue, but...

One of the things quite evident from the January 24th Long Beach City Council Meeting that was devoted entirely to the international airport issue was that Long Beach leaders and residents love their airport and flying JetBlue.  Their love for the airline is not just because JetBlue is part of the LB Airport family, but as Mayor Garcia and some of the councilmembers emphasized several times during the meeting, JetBlue has outstanding employees and those employees obviously love their work.

However, when it comes to JetBlue’s New York-based corporate leaders, many residents, and dare we say some city leaders too, often view them as corporate bullies.  Using its long-time near monopoly at our airport seems to have empowered JetBlue’s corporate caviler attitude toward Long Beach in numerous areas. First their push for a huge airport expansion. Then came its rotation of flight slots causing fiscal hardships for our remodeled "right-sized" airport. Next is the company’s ongoing unwillingness to even acknowledge the constant late-night flights that violate the LB Noise Ordinance. All of this came well before the company’s latest push to impose its business model on Long Beach its need for what amounted to a private international terminal- by not a simple ask, but what felt to many like an entitlement demand.

Need more proof?  One has to look no further than the statement from JetBlue’s Senior Vice President Rob Land in today’s Press-Telegram.  In that paper’s story on last night’s City Council airport vote, the following was reported:

“In a statement after the vote, Rob Land, senior vice president of government affairs for JetBlue, said “We are profoundly disappointed that after years of delay and a city-mandated study validating the safety, security and economic positive nature of the project, that the city council would reject the development of a Federal Inspection Station at Long Beach Airport,” he said. “JetBlue will evaluate its future plans for Long Beach, the greater Los Angeles area and California.” *

To be blunt, Mr. Land’s comment is insulting and condescending to ALL of the Long Beach community.

Delay Mr. Land?

As almost all of the City Council stated last night, a "process" was followed to allow a complete study of all the issues surrounding the request by JetBlue.  Plus, as Mayor Garcia pointed out during the December 2016 City Council Study Session on the Jacobs’ Study and last night, he and the council were committed to an open and transparent process. All anyone has to do is compare Mayor Garcia and the current council's handling of this airport issue with the former experience and process over the remodeling of the Long Beach Airport.  Residents remember the hours spent sitting in the city council, not because everyone was given an opportunity to speak as has been the case with the FIS meetings, but because more often than not the airport item was placed at the end of a very long agenda.  Does anyone remember any time in this city’s history that ONE WHOLE NIGHT was ever devoted to just an airport-related issue?

And while Mr. Land shares his disappointment in the process of democracy, he obviously does not understand our community is disappointed in him. 

So Mr. Land, let us be clear about disappointment:

We are disappointed that as residents we have been attacked for owning property near an airport, an airport that when your company came here YOU knew what type of airport you were locating to – a small municipal airport with a historic terminal.

We are disappointed that after our community built your company an award-winning airport, you were not satisfied.

We are disappointed that after giving you nearly exclusive use of an award-winning airport, your company rotated your flight slots causing economic hardship for our airport.

We are disappointed that despite not flying all your slots when more slots were available your company asked for all the new slots too.

We are disappointed that your business model makes it necessary to constantly fly late into our airport. We understand why JetBlue does not fly into Orange County. Your current business model of late flights would result in JetBlue planes NOT being allowed to land after John Wayne’s curfew causing your planes to be diverted and therefore your passengers inconvenienced- almost on a nightly basis.

We are disappointed that while you hide behind creating local jobs, you purchase aircraft from a foreign maker instead of Long Beach-associated Boeing aircraft.

We are disappointed that you are not thankful that our city spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a study on a request your company made and our airport staff, city staff, Mayor, and council representatives ALL spent countless hours processing your request, while our airport impacted neighbors spent two years stressed out and worried over what your company’s plans would bring.

We are disappointed that residents and community leaders also had to spend countless hours dealing with your company’s request. How? We attended long community and council meetings, watched power points, read a 600-plus-page report, spent the holidays organizing our neighbors, walked door-to-door to pass out thousands of flyers, made countless phone calls, and dealt with your request daily on social media.

We are disappointed your request was the cause of literally pushing one of our elected officials into public tears.

And yes Mr. Land, we are disappointed with your reaction to democracy. Your comment “JetBlue will evaluate its future plans for Long Beach, the greater Los Angeles area, and California”   sounds like you're telling us you are taking your ball and leaving. Leaving, Long Beach, leaving, L.A., and leaving California.

Really? That Mr. Land sounds like just plan corporate bullying.  After disappointing so many in Long Beach, you now say you are willing to go further and disappoint your customers, employees, and shareholders.

Perhaps Mr. Land you should take a page from your loyal employees who daily live up to JetBlue’s corporate pledge of “inspiring humanity” and bring some of that humanity to your corporate office and relationships with our city’s leaders, residents and loyal customers who despite the many disappointments spent hours on a Tuesday night telling you-while you can’t have everything you want at the Long Beach Airport, we still like the idea of JetBlue being here.

See the Press Telegram story: City won’t allow international travel at Long Beach Airport; JetBlue to ‘evaluate’ plans here

Click on: MR LAND

Airport answers: WHAT?????

Airport answers: MOU, unknown, Las Vegas, Yelp, and JetBlue did not rotate slots

LB Airport responds to neighborhood follow-up questions with its own "alternate facts"

At the December 2016 City Council Airport Study Session, 8th District Councilman Al Austin submitted questions to the Airport Director concerning Jacobs'  Feasibility Study on the international terminal (FIS).  When those answers were made public, 4th District Councilman Daryl Supernaw asked if any of his constituents had follow-up questions about the airport's answers.

On January 10, 2017 neighborhood leaders of the Los Altos Center Adjacent Neighborhoods (LACAN) submitted numerous follow-up questions.  Long Beach Airport Director Jess Romo answered those questions in an email today January 23, 2017-one day before January 24, 2017. Below is a synopsis of the important points in the Airport Director's responses.

The Airport could not provide a process on how to close a FIS facility if no major carrier flies international from LB

According to the Jacobs Study, only JetBlue is interested in an international terminal at Long Beach Airport.  In his answer to Councilman Austin as to what would happen to the FIS facility it "it is not used in the future", the Airport Director responded that the Homeland Security customs personnel would be "redeployed"  and the "FIS would be repurposed" .

LACAN asked the follow-up question "What is the process for a FIS facility being shut down?" Romo's answer was that the process to close the FIS would be "detailed in a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Department of Homeland Security, if the FIS Project is approved to move forward".

So according to the Airport Director, the plan if JetBlue stops flying internationally or leaves Long Beach is that the Airport plans to have a memorandum with Homeland Security to close an FAA-approved facility. 

Currently, the FAA is threatening Santa Monica over its plans to close its airport:  FAA threatens to sue Santa Monica

When Fresno-Yosemite International lost its only international carrier it was forced to keep the international terminal open and pay for  a terminal without a carrier. Months later, a start-up Mexican carrier started a few weekly flights.

Airport admits:

No known examples of repurposing a FIS facility

LACAN asked Director Romo; "What are the most recent occurrences in the U.S. of a FIS facility being shut down?"

Director Romo replied "Unknown".

In response to the LACAN question "If any FIS facilities were shuttered, what was the FIS repurposed into?

Director Romo replied " No known examples of FIS facility repurposing. However, it is common practice for Airport facilities to be adaptively re-used."

No data about the economic benefits of domestic vs. international flights

In response to a LACAN question about the cost-benefit of domestic vs international flights -similar to Mayor Garcia's concerns, the Airport Director's answer included:

"The scope of the Feasibility Study did not include a benefit/cost analysis or a comparative analysis between domestic or international flights".

Airport denies JetBlue's  "slot rotation" or "slot squatting"

One of the concerns raised in numerous public meetings from Mayor Garcia, Councilman Supernaw and Councilman Al Austin was the practice of JetBlue not to fly all of its LGB flight slots by using a practice of "rotating" its slots or as Councilman Austin called it "slot squatting".  That practice harmed the income of  LGB and was only discontinued when Southwest came to LGB and demanded the unused JetBlue slots.  

In March 2016, Mayor Garcia met with neighbors at the Los Altos Center Bagelry & Bistro and directly discussed his views about JetBlue and the airline's lack of competition allowing slot rotation.

In response to a question by LACAN regarding the fiscal harm JetBlue's well-documented and well-known "slot rotating" or "slot squatting", Airport Director Romo wrote:  "JetBlue has not rotated allotted slots but utilized them within the guidelines of the resolution, Any potential shortage in revenue is recovered through higher rates and charges to the air carriers"

The airport cannot back up FIS convention business

In response to Mayor Garcia, Councilman Austin and the LB Convention and Visitor Bureau's concerns about domestic vs international flights' impact on LB convention business, the Airport in its response to Councilman Austin's original questions wrote that it was "speculative" domestic flights were better for LB Convention business.  The Airport replied that the Jacobs Study did not "specifically analyze convention traffic from Latin America" and added that " LGB is not aware of data concerning origin and destinations of convention traffic" and "Assuming opportunities for convention traffic from Latin America is speculative"  .

In response to a LACAN question on what potential  Mexican convention business is located in the Mexican resort towns, the Airport replied: "Not all forecasted destinations are tourist towns" and cited Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Panama City. 

The only two cities JetBlue currently flies to in Mexico is Mexico City and Cancun.  Click on JetBlue flights

Mexico City airport currently is not allowing any further flights and JetBlue does not service Panama City.  The U.S. State Department has issues travel warnings for Americans traveling to Panama: Click on U.S. Tourists to Panama warnings

LB compared to Las Vegas, Seattle and Boston in study as "like" markets

LACAN asked what cities ("like markets") were used to evaluate the Long Beach tourist rate to the "historical data of like markets" data that was quoted in the airport answers to Councilman Austin's Question #26.

Airport Director Romo wrote:

"Distribution between origination and destination passengers for a majority of the forecasted international markets is comparable to the Las Vegas market..."

Mr. Romo's answer went on to explain two exceptions to Las Vegas: "Guadalajara is comparable to the Seattle market" and "Panama City is comparable to the Boston market"

In the LACAN question related to the answer to Councilman Austin's Question #2 that states about the FIS that "most of the traffic is expected to be outbound"   Director Romo writes: "Similar to the predominately outbound Las Vegas market, every passenger departing from LGB has an economic footprint".

The airport uses Yelp for data on inbound tourists

The LACAN question "What data shows that any inbound tourist traffic would choose LGB over LAX?   Airport Director Romo replied:

"The scope of the study did not include a survey of passenger preference between local airports. However, the current Yelp rating for LGB is 4.5 stars versus 2.5 stars for LAX."

Yelp does not exist in South America. It arrived in Mexico in August of 2014 but was unable to capture many followers. 

In November 2015, Yelp announced it was pulling out of international markets except for Canada.

Click on YELP Leaves international markets

LB council to vote on Airport on Tuesday

International Terminal final showdown 

LB City Council Airport vote on Tuesday Jan 24th

  

The Long Beach City Council is scheduled to vote on the controversial request from JetBlue for an international terminal (FIS facility) at the Long Beach Airport on Tuesday January 24th at 5:00 pm.

The International Terminal is the only Regular Item on the agenda, with the city staff recommending a yes vote. 
Click on: Agenda

Neighborhood opponents to the airport re-designation  of the airport into an international terminal point to numerous issues including: the possibility of  a challenge to the LB Noise Ordinance;  the lack of reliable evidence an FIS will provide significant local economic benefits; a decrease in domestic flights; and significant economic risks in international travel with Mexico during the Trump administration.
Click on MEXICO and TRUMP

Leading a coalition of  Long Beach neighborhoods against the proposal for an FIS terminal at the airport is  HUSH 2.  

Click on HUSH 2

Anticipating JetBlue busing in employees for next week's meeting, HUSH 2 is distributing thousands of flyers across Long Beach neighborhoods asking for residents to show-up for the final show down on the 24th.