RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8175 posts, RR: 4 Posted (10 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6391 times:
I'm sure everyone has read about the issues of JetBlue (B6) having troubles flying the A320 non-stop between US West Coast destinations and its main hub at JFK.
I wonder this though: has B6 ever approached Airbus with the idea of building a higher-MTOW A320 that has extra fuel capacity (which sacrifices some cargo space) and more powerful IAE V2500 engine derivatives so B6 can fly routes like SMF-JFK and BUR-JFK non-stop year-round? And B6 could buy enough planes (maybe 50-60 examples) so the development and certification costs of this modified A320 could be justified.
Web From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6348 times:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since B6 has the passenger capacity pretty much maxed out, they are loading as much fuel on the plane as they can, but MTOW prevents a full load of fuel. Thus, if A were to create a higher MTOW A320, they would have to tweak the wing as well, and while they're doing that, they might as well do it to the rest of the A320 series, and that takes time, which they might see as better spent working on the A350. So, if B6 were to approach A with the idea, it would probably be shelved for a while and not have an immediate impact like B6 would prefer.
JetBlueAtJFK From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1687 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6344 times:
It is a good idea and if Airbus does decide to make it, it might take maybe like 2-3 years so it is good that they can ge it faster but it will cost more and they will have to wait a while with the regular planes and continue with occasional fuel stops.
They did buy some planes that have the central fuel tank but it took up to much space and something else happened so they stopped buying them, maybe they should use those planes with the tank to do the routes.
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3118 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6282 times:
I find it difficult to understand why Jet Blue are effected by the Maximum take off weight on the A320 or the aircrafts not able to carry enough fuel to operate coast to coast.
I am looking at this from a European perspective and please dont jump down my throat if I have missed out any factors that effect flying in the US...
But airlines like First Choice and Thomas Cook operate their A320's from the UK to destinations like Egypt and Israel which is 5.5hrs flight length and with 189 passengers (28inch Seat Pitch) and all their luggage for a one/two week holiday/vacation with very little difficulty.
These flights will also be effected by the hot and dry conditions and also operating from regional airports in the UK with relatively short runways runways of 7000ft. (eg. LTN)
Brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3032 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6261 times:
Quoting Web (Reply 1): Correct me if I'm wrong, but since B6 has the passenger capacity pretty much maxed out, they are loading as much fuel on the plane as they can, but MTOW prevents a full load of fuel. Thus, if A were to create a higher MTOW A320, they would have to tweak the wing as well, and while they're doing that, they might as well do it to the rest of the A320 series, and that takes time, which they might see as better spent working on the A350. So, if B6 were to approach A with the idea, it would probably be shelved for a while and not have an immediate impact like B6 would prefer.
B6 does not have the pax capacity of the A320 maxed out, not close.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
Kdeg00 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6183 times:
Does B6 have range issues on all its west to east tanscons, or is it mainly the Burbank flight under some takeoff conditions? There was a thread a couple of weeks ago talking about how Burbanks pattern had to deal with quickly gaining elevation because of the surrounding mountains ande therefore they had to take off at less than full load. What I can't remember is whether the thread was talking about a ruduced fuel load, a reduced passenger load, less cargo, or all three.
CRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2307 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6163 times:
Doesn't US legacy carriers (UA etc) fly 150-seat A320s on transcons everyday without problems? Six additional seats surely cannot mean that much more trouble? Or is it specifically due to the short runway at BUR why jetBlue has difficulties?
Like another poster said, MYT also fly 177-seat A320s from Scandinavia to the Canary Islands, which is 4,200 kms, flying over windy stretches along the European and African continental coastlines...
Modesto2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2866 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6125 times:
In the last quarter of 2004, JetBlue started taking delivery of A320's with the ACT (additional center tank). This additional fuel tank was supposed to address the range issues. However, the weight of the extra fuel was detrimental enough to offset the intended extra range. Can't say they haven't tried!
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6070 times:
I think it's important to note here that there are probably two weight-related issues here.
The first issue is max structural takeoff weight. If this is the limiting factor on westbound long-hauls, the weight may be able to be increased without physical changes to the aircraft. For example, the original 737-300 had a max takeoff of 130,000 but an airline could obtain ($$$) additional certification for higher weights, and the max is then 139,000. Assuming Airbus does it the same way, this could be an option.
The other issue is performance-limited weights, i.e. BUR on a hot day, or anytime they're on runway 33. Irrespective of what the max structural weights are, performance-limited weights restrict them further, and the only solution is a more powerful engine rating. This could entail a software change and tweaking of the engine (both at an upgrade cost), and it might not totally solve the problem.
As someone else mentioned, fuel tank capacity may also be an issue. An aircraft can have great takeoff/landing performance, but too small a fuel tank for the intended mission negates all that...
Flightopsguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6023 times:
I recall that the Allowable takeoff gross weight at BUR (a Runway limit usually) is considerably less than the Structural limit. OPNLguy is correct to point out that often higher structural weights (both takeoff and landing) are available for purchase from the manufacturer, with no physical change to the aircraft.
Occasionally a carrier will actually pay to reduce the structural weights. For example, when flying shorter segments, and always being burnout limited, so the allowable takeoff weight never approaches the structural limit. Airport fees are often calculated based on the max structural weights of the aircraft.
CAN Playbook routes from west to east challenge many aircraft types especially when they are unable to depart at max weight. BUR, SNA and SAN can all be headaches. I would bet (after dispatching airbii for quite a few years) that JBU never fills the tanks on their transcons....it's not a max fuel issue, it's a weight issue.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5818 times:
Now you know why I suggested a more powerful V2500 engine for the higher-MTOW A320's. Maybe JetBlue could use the V2500's used on the A321 onto the higher-MTOW A320's so they could take advantage of thethe additional center tank's extra fuel capacity?