Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JetBlue "Fuel Stops" From LGB In July  
User currently offlineDCAYOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 599 posts, RR: 3
Posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5369 times:


It looks like the east bound departures from LGB to IAD, FLL, JFK will have a fuel stop as LGB is doing runway work.

The stop is listed as ZZZ airport. Anybody know where jetBlue intends to stop for fuel ?




Retorne ao céu...
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJblake1 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5325 times:

Why would runway work require a fuel stop?

User currently offlineJetsetsteve From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5285 times:


Where is this infomation coming from.....


User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6090 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5277 times:

If they are doing runway work and reduce the useable runway, then they won't have the lengh for a A320 fully loaded on a trancon flight. My guess would be DIA for JFK and IAD. Most likely a city with B6 service already. The FLL flight, I have not idea. DIA would be very much out of the way.

What are the dates you are shwing a fuel stop DCAYOW and where did you see this?

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineJblake1 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5250 times:

If they are doing runway work and reduce the useable runway, then they won't have the lengh for a A320 fully loaded on a trancon flight.

Does that mean they have to use more power and therefore more fuel on takeoff? Making a fuel stop necessary?

sorry if I'm asking a stupid question.





User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6090 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5189 times:

Its not a stupid question:

They will have less runway to use, thats all. With a full load of passengers and the fuel needed they would need more runway then appears will be available when work begins. Remember, even if they can get airborne, you still need enough runway in case of an engine failure at or below decision speed (V1).

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9490 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5177 times:

In order to make it to JFK on a shorter runway they would need to lighten up the plane so that its take off distance is less. There are two ways to do this. Lower the number of passengers/cargo carried, or reduce the amount of fuel on the plane so that take off weight is less, and the plane will take off faster. In order for the routes to be economical they prefer to carry less fuel, which would require a fuel stop.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineJOSS21 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5135 times:

I believe that this means that the A320 with max pax & bags can not lift off of the LGB runway while the runway length is restricted (shorter than it normally is) with the appropriate amount of fuel to make it to the east coast.

How about in air refueling??  Big grin


User currently offlineRydawg82 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 858 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5092 times:

Less Runway = Weight Restrictions on takeoff...I'm not familiar with loading an A320, but with a 737-700, lets say you need 41,000 lbs of gas to get from point A to Point B, with a shortened runway lets say your max allowable takeoff weight is only 130,000 lbs. 156 passengers and their bags (lets say 1.2 bags a person) would run you about 33,600 lbs. Assuming the plane weighs about 80,000 lbs empty, that brings your zero fuel weight to about 113,600 lbs. Now if you needed to take 41,000 lbs of gas you would be looking at 154,600 lbs for a takeoff weight. Obviously you are overweight, two choices, A. Reduce the number of passengers/bags you will take on board, paying gross amounts of denied boarding compensation and baggage delivery fees, or B. Maximize revenues by being upfront with passengers about a technical stop and take a full boat with a reduced fuel load to another station where you can top off and continue on.

This is a very simple explanation of things, and my numbers are just estimate.

Oh and as far as the fuel stop, guessing LAS??? The fuel stop is shown only about 1 hour out of LGB, not enough time to get to DEN, also the shorter the hop the less gas they have to take out of LGB, thus more people/bags....

Hope this helps,
Ryan



You can take the pup out of Alaska, but you can't take the Alaska out of the pup.
User currently offlineJetbluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2971 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5038 times:

Looking at the schedules, it looks like the stops will be at SEA and ONT, where people from those cities can also take the flight that's stopped to refuel.

JetBluefan1



Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
User currently offlineJohn From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1374 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4992 times:

Continental uses a 737-700 on the SNA-EWR route and that runway's only 5700 feet...Aloha also flys nonstop to HNL and OGG off SNA's very short runway...so you have to question HOW often these particular flights are weight restricted? Does the 73G typically have slightly better takeoff performance than the A320?

User currently offlineRamerinianair From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4970 times:

What dates are these stops going to be in effect for???


Thanks,
SR



W N = my Worst Nightmare!!!!!
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4967 times:

>>>Does that mean they have to use more power and therefore more fuel on takeoff? Making a fuel stop necessary?

Not exactly...

When a runway gets shortened (for construction, or whatever reason) it means that the aircraft using it are not going to be able to "lift" as much weight off the ground as they would if the runway was full length.

Let's try an example with some made-up numbers to illustrate the points... (and before anyone mentions it, yes, I know JetBlue doesn't fly 737s LGB-JFK)

Let's say a 737-300 can takeoff from LGB at a max weight of 135,000 lbs with the runway at it's normal full length. If the flight is it's usually full self, the aircraft will weight about 70,000 lbs, and the pax/bags/cargo will be 30,000, for a zero-fuel weight of 100,000 lbs. With a max takeoff weight of 135,000 lbs., that 100,000 lb zero-fuel weight means that you've got room for 35,000 lbs worth of fuel. The burn LGB-JFK is, say, 25,000 lbs, and if you need to arrive JFK with 10,000 lbs (for alternate, holding, FAR reserve, etc), everything in this case has worked out perfectly.

OK, now imagine the above scenario WITHOUT the benefit of a full length runway, a closure that limits your max takeoff weight to, say 120,000 lbs. If you still have a full load of stuff weighing 100,000 lbs, it means that you no longer have room for that 35,000 lbs of fuel that you need to get to JFK non-stop, so you basically have to operate the flight -someplace- that you can get to within that maximum available 20,000 lbs of fuel. You could, of course, take the full 35,000 lbs of fuel you needed to go non-stop, but that would entail leaving 15,000 lbs. of pax/bags/cargo off the flight (about 70-75 folks) who wouldn't exactly be thrilled about those prospects.

Runway shortenings/closures often do NOT affect flights that are short, like 60-90 minutes in duration, since it takes less overall fuel for those types of missions.

Does that help?

As far as where JetBlue might stop, their cities ONT, LAX and SAN are all close-by, and LAS is on the way, so I'd surmise that they'd stop in one of these places versus an off-line airport.


[Edited 2004-05-24 01:42:19]

[Edited 2004-05-24 01:47:47]

User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6090 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4910 times:

JetBlueFan....why would a LGB-JFK stop in SEA and refuel. If it shows 1 hour, I would imagine its a LAS stop.

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineRandy4920 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4818 times:

IT IS LAS (confirmed)

User currently offlineRydawg82 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 858 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4694 times:

Can any one tell me what the OEW is for a A320 with/without the required crew/catering aboard?


You can take the pup out of Alaska, but you can't take the Alaska out of the pup.
User currently offlineJetSaurus From United States of America, joined May 2003, 59 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4525 times:

Someone on the flyertalk boards got a response from jetBlue that it would happen but the city of choice had not been selected yet.

Rumor has it that it will be SLC or LAS.



Jack/GPT
User currently offlineB6FA4ever From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 816 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4440 times:

more than likely it would be LAS since LAS is on its way to the east coast for our flight path. SLC would barely make a legal routing w/ the fuel that would be needed to take off...(i know this from experience). LGB-SLC-FLL would be really out of the way compared to going through LAS.

~B6FA4ever


User currently offlineAsteriskceo From United States of America, joined May 2004, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4375 times:

Hmm...they were working on 30/12 earlier in the year, I remember seeing a 767, a bizzilion A320s, and a 757 takeoff and land on 25R, im pretty sure there were some LGB-JFK flights in there.

Not sure if they refueled somewhere.


User currently offlineWilax From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 465 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4285 times:

On the LGB website, it says that on certain Saturdays this year, runway 12/30 will be closed and all carriers will use runway 7L/25R which is significantly shorter thus reduced takeoff weights will be necessary for all flights.

User currently offlineJohn From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1374 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4057 times:

Runway 7L/25R at LGB is 6192 feet. That's short, but not as short as SNA's 5700 feet. The 757 and 73G routinely take off heavy from SNA on transcon routes with few restrictions, as far as I know. Does UA operate any A320s transcon out of SNA, as a comparison, and do they regularly incur any weight penalties?

User currently offlineRichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4242 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3967 times:

How bizarre....
I'd guess LAS and SLC for the IAD and JFK flights. Most likely LAS or ONT for FLL flights. Thank God it is only on Saturdays!



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineDeltaAgent1 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 104 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3816 times:

I do believe it will be SLC. They are doing a lot of work at their
only gate, and they have placed a bunch of boxes belonging to B6 at
a B gate that DL used to occupy.


User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26361 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3755 times:

The reason the 73G can do what the A320 is size. The 73G carrier a max of 149 PAX (would probably be around 122-125 with B6) and the A320 carries a max of 179 (156 with B6). If B6 has A319s, they would not really have a problem doing the route, as it carries almost as much gas while being lighter. Same thing with the 73G and the 738. The 738 (without winglets) might also have a problem doing the same route if B6 flew them.


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24820 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3588 times:

JetBlue A320 OEW is approx 98500lbs.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDCAYOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (10 years 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3482 times:

This is the search I performed for LGB-IAD departing 24 JUL. Came of jetBlue website.

Sat, 24 Jul 04
Flight 1304 6:55 am Depart Long Beach, CA (LGB)
7:55 am
8:55 am Through Fuel Stop (ZZZ)
3:50 pm Arrive Washington, DC/Dulles (IAD)






Retorne ao céu...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
JetBlue TransCon Fuel Stops... Necessary W/ 737? posted Thu Mar 16 2006 18:24:01 by Warreng24
JetBlue A320 Fuel Stops posted Thu Oct 16 2003 21:54:43 by Jblake1
AA To Start 777 Service From RDU In July posted Fri May 4 2001 03:46:18 by Aa762
"New" Braniff In 1981 posted Tue Nov 14 2006 00:16:45 by Magyarorszag
FedEx In The Movie "Castaway" posted Sat Nov 11 2006 16:15:07 by Shinkai
Thank You From Your "xxx" Based Flight Attendants posted Fri Nov 3 2006 14:56:16 by Singapore_Air
"AF Must Invest In AZ Rescue To Get Stake" posted Tue Oct 24 2006 17:43:46 by Mindscape
Nostalgic MEA In Dubai "1960s" posted Thu Sep 14 2006 20:13:38 by Cedars747
Baseler: Boeing In "Serious" 787-10 Talks posted Thu Sep 14 2006 07:09:26 by Leelaw
JetBlue CEO "pessimistic" On Newark posted Wed Jul 26 2006 16:13:14 by STT757