Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?  
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7987 posts, RR: 5
Posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5785 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.

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWeb From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5742 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.


Next flight: GRR-ORD-PDX-SEA-ORD-GRR
User currently offlineJetBlueAtJFK From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1687 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5738 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.

 airplane jetBlueAtJFK airplane 



When You Know jetBlue, You Know Better
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24999 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5725 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Or use the A319's. 20 less pax, but no stops.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3001 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5676 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)


User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5655 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.
User currently offlineKdeg00 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5577 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.

User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5557 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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...



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineModesto2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2787 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5519 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!

User currently offlinePadcrasher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5517 times:

Maybe Jetblue could go to FAA and try an get an exemption for take off weight? Like the wheel chair requirement and the pilot rest requirements?

What's a little less extra gas?


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5464 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...


User currently offlineFlightopsguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5417 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.



A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5403 times:

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 11):
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.

Having never dispatched one myself, I'd always wondered...

Thanks for the info...  Wink


User currently offlineFA4B6 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5314 times:

doesnt B6's IFE add a lot of extra weight?

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7987 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5212 times:

Now you know why I suggested a more powerful V2500 engine for the higher-MTOW A320's.  Smile 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?

User currently offlineFA4B6 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5189 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 14):
so they could take advantage of thethe additional center tank's extra fuel capacity?

the center tanks are being removed ..


User currently offlineTS-IOR From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 3450 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5109 times:

There is already a HGW version for the A32X family. As for the A320, the highest MTOW is 77,000Kg for a range of 3065nm. The A319 could go 632nm farther with a lighter Mtow.

User currently offlineFlybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1801 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4733 times:

Quoting FA4B6 (Reply 13):
doesn't B6's IFE add a lot of extra weight?

Yes, the total system weighs approximately 2,000 lbs so having a full pax load AND that heavy IFE makes the A320 very iffy on transcons even with the extra tanks.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 7):
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?

As stated before, personalized IFE on UA planes are non-existent so UA can fly their A320s transcon at full pax loads and still be 2,000 lbs lighter than B6's jets.



"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26361 posts, RR: 76
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4664 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Thread starter):
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.

Actually, most of the issues going westbound have been out of BOS.

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

They are 23 seats under the certified maximum

Quoting Mariner (Reply 3):
Or use the A319's. 20 less pax, but no stops.

B6 does not want A319s, and has repeated this constantly.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineJblake1 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4379 times:

I don't mean to throw gas on a fire but, would they have this issue if they were flying 737's instead of A320's? Just curios. Thanks.

jblake1


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26361 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4334 times:

Quoting Jblake1 (Reply 19):
I don't mean to throw gas on a fire but, would they have this issue if they were flying 737's instead of A320's? Just curios. Thanks.

No, it would not be as much of an issue, but B6 was offered a much better deal by Airbus, as Boeing was still in its "we tell you what to do" phase of stupidity that also cost them the F9 order



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4207 times:

Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 17):
Quoting FA4B6 (Reply 13):
doesn't B6's IFE add a lot of extra weight?

Yes, the total system weighs approximately 2,000 lbs so having a full pax load AND that heavy IFE makes the A320 very iffy on transcons even with the extra tanks.

I find it hard to understand how a lousy 2,000 lbs in an aircraft that size has that much of an effect.

If this is the case, why dont they go to an A-321 on transcons? Or a 757 to Burbank if hot is an issue?



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26361 posts, RR: 76
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4166 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 21):
If this is the case, why dont they go to an A-321 on transcons?

Because that has even less range

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 21):
Or a 757 to Burbank if hot is an issue?

You are kidding, right? Right???? Take away the fact that the plane is not made anymore and that no one is selling, the commonality issues alone would kill them



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBigB From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 596 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3933 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 21):
If this is the case, why dont they go to an A-321 on transcons?

LOL, that would not only be asking, but begging for failure.



ETSN Baber, USN
User currently offlineWestIndian425 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1024 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3920 times:

Q. Isn't there an indian airline (I think -- no time to do research) that has A320's with double bogey main gears? Wasn't that for increase in weight?

Neil



God did not create aircraft pilots to be on the ground
25 Post contains images Glideslope : The thread was about the range of B6's 320's. Not to share personal bias toward the airline. It's too bad your so unhappy.
26 Brons2 : no, it was for fragile secondary runways. pressure is distributed across more wheels with the double bogey mains. the newer ones they got have single
27 AirTranTUS : Would the 738 HGW w/ blended winglets have been a better choice? It has a MTOW of 174,200lb compared to a max MTOW of 169,755lb for the A320. (This da
28 Halls120 : Good question. I flew yesterday on a UA A320 from Oakland to Dulles, without any fuel stops.....
29 Flightopsguy : A departure from OAK would go out at near or at structural takeoff weight. Still possible the flight could be burnout limited (structural landing weig
30 Gigneil : Always a mistake, but for once it is correct. N
31 Jeff G : The last 10 planes or so that JB has taken delivery of, the ones that were intended to use the ACT, have a higher MTOW than the earlier deliveries. Th
32 United_fan : On a side-note,jetblue 290 just came into ROC on a BUR-JFK diversion.(6-26)
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...
The Potential A320.5 For JetBlue posted Tue Jul 30 2002 23:00:46 by N79969
Why I Love Working For Jetblue posted Mon Nov 13 2006 16:30:24 by JetJock22
Vueling To Buy 5 A320's From JetBlue? posted Sun Sep 24 2006 00:16:56 by Wsan581
New Website For Jetblue Goes Live 9/21 posted Wed Sep 20 2006 21:34:53 by Crogalski
First Pictures Of 1st A320 For Span. LCC Clickair posted Mon Sep 4 2006 13:50:04 by IberiaA319
1st A320 For Indigo - Photo- posted Sat Jun 24 2006 19:16:00 by Jbond
Frontier To Get Higher Mtow 319s posted Tue Jun 6 2006 22:21:39 by PVD757
New A320 For Nouvelair posted Fri May 19 2006 18:44:29 by TS-IOR
Finally! First A320 For LAN Argentina! posted Thu May 18 2006 21:49:48 by MD11junkie
What Does The Future Hold For JetBlue? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 05:29:32 by JetBlueAUS