Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!  
User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11506 times:

With the headaches of payload restrictions on some trans-cons, the inability to operate routes such as BOS-SAN, no range for WC-HNL or BOS-LGW, why is jetBlue not also flying the A319??? They had to take 2 rows of seats out of their A320's so they could make it on some of these routes, almost bringing them to the capacity of the A319 anyway!

I am honestly surprised that they went for the A320 in the first place, since it is inferior in range to both the A319 and A321. Maybe they did not realize how many trans-cons they were going to get into?

My $0.02...they made a critical mistake...their fleet should be E190, A319, and A321 (NO A320)...but what does my opinion matter?


Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
88 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineB742 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11470 times:

I think they should introduce the A319, but no take out the A320!

An A319 would have the additional range and would act as the middle man between the A320 and E190!

Rob!  wave 


User currently offlineTinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11454 times:

Im quite sure that that the A321 is inferior in range to the A320.


"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12103 posts, RR: 49
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11450 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
My $0.02...they made a critical mistake...their fleet should be E190, A319, and A321 (NO A320)...but what does my opinion matter?

Yeah all the profits they have made so far would say they have made the right decision right from day one.



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlinePositiverate From United States of America, joined May 2005, 1590 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11446 times:

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
With the headaches of payload restrictions on some trans-cons, the inability to operate routes such as BOS-SAN, no range for WC-HNL or BOS-LGW, why is jetBlue not also flying the A319???

HNL? LGW? Ummm....ok.


User currently offlineB6FA4ever From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 816 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11423 times:

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
They had to take 2 rows of seats out of their A320's so they could make it on some of these routes, almost bringing them to the capacity of the A319 anyway!

ok, we only took out one row of seats and that was because passengers were complaining about the seat pitch and that (at the time) row 27 did not recline. so one row of seats were taken out and rows 13-26 extended back. also, its just winter time when there are problems w/ the trans-cons due to the strong head winds.

~B6FA4ever


User currently offlineLhrmaccoll From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11415 times:

But the 320 offers just that little bit more capactiy on high density routes, while killing the operating costs of a 321 or 757
Alex


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11361 times:

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
With the headaches of payload restrictions on some trans-cons, the inability to operate routes such as BOS-SAN, no range for WC-HNL or BOS-LGW, why is jetBlue not also flying the A319???

What in the world makes you think the A319 can operate BOS-LGW/STN with any kind of respectable load, because it can't.

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
They had to take 2 rows of seats out of their A320's so they could make it on some of these routes, almost bringing them to the capacity of the A319 anyway

What do you think they would do with the A319? 29" pitch and fill it out to 149? Look at scale first

Quoting Lhrmaccoll (Reply 6):
But the 320 offers just that little bit more capactiy on high density routes, while killing the operating costs of a 321 or 757

Actually, the A321 and the 757 both kill the A320 when it comes to CASM



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11271 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
What in the world makes you think the A319 can operate BOS-LGW/STN with any kind of respectable load, because it can't.

Ummmmm.....yes....a full NON-ER A319 has nearly the same range as a full 757!

BOS-LGW: 5265km
A319: 6845km (source: this site)
A319ER: EVEN MORE RANGE!

Even with the winds, it is WELL within range since A319 range with max payload is 1600km farther than BOS-LGW!!! Also (unlike the A320), the aux fuel tanks do work in the A319, which can farther increase its range



Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
User currently offlineLetsgetwet From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11194 times:

I don't think you'll see Jet Blue in London or Hawaii any time soon (if ever) !

User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11197 times:

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 8):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
What in the world makes you think the A319 can operate BOS-LGW/STN with any kind of respectable load, because it can't.

Ummmmm.....yes....a full NON-ER A319 has nearly the same range as a full 757!

BOS-LGW: 5265km
A319: 6845km (source: this site)

Bingo Lrgt !

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
WC-HNL

ONT-HNL, for example, is only 4189 km, whhich is well within the range of B6´s A320s.

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=o...GE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=&ETOPS=180



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32736 posts, RR: 72
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11131 times:

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
the inability to operate routes such as BOS-SAN, no range for WC-HNL

What are you talking about?

WC-HNL and BOS-SAN are both shorter than BOS-OAK, jetBlue's longest route. Oakland-Honolulu is nearly 200 miles shorter than BOS-OAK.



a.
User currently offlineBtriple7 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 1161 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11124 times:

David Neeleman has already expressed that he does not want to go international. It gets way to complicated. Maybe if OpenSkies come through, but until then I think LGW is out of the question.


Just...fly.
User currently offlineLrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10994 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 10):
Bingo Lrgt !

Thanks...I don't think people realize that the base A319 is superior to their beloved 737NG.  Wink

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 11):
What are you talking about?

WC-HNL and BOS-SAN are both shorter than BOS-OAK, jetBlue's longest route. Oakland-Honolulu is nearly 200 miles shorter than BOS-OAK.

That is what I used to think, but they barely make BOS-OAK and they need a little bit for fuel for ETOPS to OAK/LGB-HNL. While BOS-SAN is shorter than BOS-OAK, it cannot be done because of other reasons; I believe I was told terrain (source: jetBlue pilot).



Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
User currently offlineMikkel777 From Norway, joined Oct 2002, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10936 times:

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 13):
I don't think people realize that the base A319 is superior to their beloved 737NG.

On price and cabin width, not much else.


User currently offlineHZ747300 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2004, 1665 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10863 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
but what does my opinion matter?

It doesn't. What does HNL or LGW have to do with anything jetBlue offers or plans to offer. And I am quite certain that the A321 is a weaker performer versus the A320.



Keep on truckin'...
User currently offlineJetMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10815 times:

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 13):
Thanks...I don't think people realize that the base A319 is superior to their beloved 737NG.

"Base A319" superior to the "B737NG"? What kind of comparison is that? You compare one single model ("base"?) out of a family to a whole family...and no, even if you compare A319 and B73G (-700) one cannot simply determine which one is better. Depends on the specific needs of a specific airline, meaning there are dozens of aspects to be considered when an aircraft type has to be chosen.

Quoting Mikkel777 (Reply 14):
On price and cabin width, not much else.

Very general, almost somehow ignorant statement, not much better than the original poster's. As I said earlier, every single airline has specific needs. Some airlines focus on commonality, others prefer specific engines (e.g. IAE), others require high altitude takeoff performance. And who tells you A319s are always cheaper than B73Gs?


Regards,
JM

[Edited 2005-10-31 23:15:23]

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10811 times:

While the A319 may offer certain advantages over the A320 on a few of JetBlues longer routes, JetBlue is probably not intereted in adding a third type to its fleet.....I do realize that the A319 has an awful lot in common with the A320, but having another type will complicate operations and is not worth the trouble, it easier using the A320 and taking some penalities on the longer routes when conditions are not favorable.

JetBlue at one time was trying to convince Airbus to build the A320.5.....an A32X sized inbetween the A320 and A321 but nothing serious ever came of that. I mention it because I dont think that JetBlue is interested in adding a smaller member of the A32X family to their fleet: they have settled on the E190 for lower capacity operations (over the A318) and the A320 for higher capacity operations, and thats the fleet that JetBlue will probably stay with into the foreseeable future.

[Edited 2005-10-31 23:25:46]

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10804 times:

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 8):
(source: this site)

That will almost always get you in trouble.

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 8):
Also (unlike the A320), the aux fuel tanks do work in the A319, which can farther increase its range

The Aux fuel tanks are available on the 319LR... the regular A319 doesn't even offer them as an option.


This is a pointless conversation. The A320 is the perfect plane for jetBlue. It features the right mix of payload and capability.

N


User currently offlineN908AW From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 926 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10791 times:

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 16):
Very general, almost somehow ignorant statement

Ah, but it was a ton less ignorant than the original statement, wasn't it?  sarcastic 

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 16):
And who tells you A319s are always cheaper than B73Gs?

Indy.



'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32736 posts, RR: 72
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10781 times:

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 13):
While BOS-SAN is shorter than BOS-OAK, it cannot be done because of other reasons; I believe I was told terrain (source: jetBlue pilot).

There are runway issues at SAN, but BOS-SAN can be done by jetBlue. The SAN-BOS leg may face weight restrictions, but that doesn't stop them from doing BUR-JFK, and it won't stop them from doing SAN-BOS.



a.
User currently offlineJetMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10770 times:

Quoting N908AW (Reply 19):
Ah, but it was a ton less ignorant than the original statement, wasn't it?

Not really a ton, but less, yes.  Wink

Quoting N908AW (Reply 19):
Indy.

Indy says the A319 is always cheaper? Really?  eyebrow 


Regards,
JM


User currently offlineJmc1975 From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3268 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10753 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 17):
JetBlue at one time was trying to convince JetBlue to build the A320.5

No wonder it never got built!  Wink



.......
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10709 times:

Duh - you got me.......but I am sure you know what I meant.

User currently offlineMikkel777 From Norway, joined Oct 2002, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10694 times:

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 16):
Very general, almost somehow ignorant statement, not much better than the original poster's.

Yes, ignorant, but true.
This has been discussed over and over. Facts: NG flies farther, faster and with less fuelburn than the bus. The engine option on the bus is a good thing, and also the cockpit-commonality with 330/340. This is, however, overrated. Airbus can load containers, but NG can easier be loaded on remote stations without much equipment. On hot'n high operations, the NG has the upper hand.

Both are good planes, safe and effective. Anyway, it boils down to the individual customers needs and recources. In most cases, the NG is the most economic in the long term perspective, but the bus is cheaper to buy.

[Edited 2005-10-31 23:29:35]

25 Lrgt : The statement was made in the context of RANGE. I didn't think I needed to specify that, but I should have since it was obviously mis-interpreted. Ve
26 Mikkel777 : Try comparing the 70t MTOW versions for both aircraft
27 Flick70 : Jetblue has "gone international" for quite some time now. Did you mean TransAtlantic?
28 A342 : OK, I´m confused here. There are so many different nomenclatures, could somebody please enlighten me ? -100, -100ER, -200, -LR. For the ACJ, 3 diffe
29 Post contains images Lightsaber : What B6 needs is a longer range A320. Since the centerline tank isn't of benifit, the simple solution is for IAE to actually develop the next V2500!
30 Islandboy : The A320 has more range than the A321. Why would B6 start ops to LGW on a narrow body that when configured for the 7+ hour journey..would probably to
31 N1120A : You are so completely wrong it is hilarious This site's data sheets are suspect at a minimum I wonder if Mexico and the Dominican Republic know that
32 Mikkel777 : It is overrated, but transitioning from A320 to A330 takes less time than say 73G to 330. The cockpist is mostly the same, and so are many of the sys
33 FutureUALpilot : As far as I know AA does SAN-BOS with the 757. I know it is different than the A320 but it is also heavier, and I would assume if the 757 can launch
34 Mikkel777 : You can never compare a 75 with a 320, or 73 for that matter. The 75 can rotate before 6000ft for a 7:30 hour flight at 1500ft density alt, the 73 or
35 N1120A : Theoretically, perhaps, but it is not as if Airbus pilots have never flown with a yoke in their lives. Flying dynamics, engine thrust differences, et
36 A342 : In this case he is right and the data is right. Oh well, some people never get over it that their beloved Boeing 737s don´t have this feature.[Edite
37 N1120A : Don't have what feature? The 737 has a fully common type rating from the -300 through the -900, with differences training for the -100/-200 No, even
38 PyroGX41487 : B6 does NOT need planes with longer range or higher payload capacity. They are still one of (if not the) top LCCs in the US. The CEO made it perfectly
39 Post contains images A342 : From where do you get this information ? On the Boeing website the 70.1-ton MTOW version is listed with 6038 km range. There are no infos about a "73
40 N1120A : The 737-700IGW is not the 70.1 ton version. It is the 85.5 ton version You are completely wrong. They MUST do another type rating in order to transit
41 A342 : So what range has it ? It´s not on the BBJ site either (no specs provided there!). Oops, yes, just found out, too. However, the transition is much f
42 N1120A : Not particularly. It just depends on the pilot.
43 Lightsaber : That's because UA's conditions used to be Pratt's design specs. However, I'm not so sure of the relation post Pw4098. UA was very frustrated at the r
44 N1120A : Really? Tell WN that they don't fly LAX-BWI multiple times daily. Also, tell AA that they don't fly 738s, without winglets, on BOS-LAX The 737-700 mo
45 Post contains images Vegasplanes : Also in Summer time here in the hot and high west coast, actually alot of planes have long rolls here when it is 120 in the shade.
46 KensukeAida : WN is. And before everybody jumps on me, it's a true statement if we're talking purely from the point of profitability. The SEC filings are publicly
47 Post contains images JetBlueAtJFK : They can fill an A320 up easily now and it is David Neeleman not needleman, that seems like a joke now, everyone puts it down. I think they should ha
48 N1120A : WN's 73Gs are not IGW versions, they are standard 70.1 ton versions. Additionally, they were upgraded after WN had been flying them for a while.
49 Islandboy : So then its safe to assume the Bahamas is domestic and part of the US. Don't let the pre-clearance fool you. Hawaii isn't international in any event.
50 Crogalski : the main reason SW is on top, is because they hedged fuel.. SW has the lowest load factors..
51 N1120A : When did Air Namibia do so well? WN (everyone here knows the code, why do people still use SW?) is not on top merely because of fuel hedges. They are
52 A342 : Again, what´s the range of those 85.5 ton "IGW" aircraft ? Are they equipped with the -800 wing, just like the BBJ ? I can´t find any info.
53 Wagz : Ok, I don't feel like quoting specific posts, but regarding the A319 and transatlantic flying: A few months ago, someone on this forum who is in dispa
54 N1120A : Look up the 737 Type certificate
55 JetMaster : Just have a look at WN's timetable and you'll find out soon they offer many connections via their focus cities. LH offers A319LR and BBJ longhauls, L
56 N1120A : Well, if you have an all C class configuration, it doesn't matter if you are flying a narrowbody
57 Milemaster : NERD ALERT!
58 JetMaster : Well, Wagz talked about the size of the plane, not the configuration. That's what I refered to: And btw - even for Eco pax it doesn't matter whether
59 Crogalski : SW and WN, whoopdidoo.. big deal.. you still get the point..
60 Supa7e7 : No. As Islandboy said, the 321 has longer legs. 321-200 carries about 1500 gal more fuel than 320-200 and has about +350nm range.
61 Lrgt : AMEN! ...and they would be posting a pretty substantial loss. I've never heard A SINGLE bad comment from B6 pax flying the A320 6.5 hours BOS-OAK. Ar
62 Klkla : Are you sureabout that? I'm pretty sure the 757 has lower costs per passenger. In what way?
63 Post contains links A342 : When I tried to download the FAA example, my IE broke down. Now could you finally please tell us what range the "737-700IGW" has ? It hasn´t. If you
64 A319XFW : Essentially the A318, A319 and A320 have the same fuel system and capacity (without ACT's). The A321 has slightly less because the wing is reinforced
65 Supa7e7 : Your confusion is understandable. Almost all A320s built are the 320-200 with 6300 gal capacity (no optional tanks). Range: 2650nm. The 321-200 comes
66 Post contains images Lightsaber : Wow, someone alert IAE now! There funding studies for an increased MTOW A321 for the purpose of achieving the A320 range!!! Nice link. Lets just say
67 Lrgt : RANGE! I think this is correct. That would mean the the A321 burns LESS fuel than the A320
68 A342 : Welcome to airliners.net ! Ah, thank you. As you seem to know more than I do, how big is a ACT ? It can´t be LD 3-46 size as the ACJ can take 6.
69 Lrgt : Can you elaborate? When is this being upgraded to new A32X's?
70 A319XFW : Wingtips a la Boeing Aviation Partners?
71 N1120A : I think you mean Winglets from Aviation Partners Boeing? B6 took ACT equipped aircraft only to find out that the added weight negated additional fuel
72 A319XFW : That would be the one. A rule of thumb is that you need a third of your fuel just to carry your ACT and the fuel to give you the extra range. Most A3
73 Post contains images Bomber996 : All seriousness aside, I got more thread names like this one.... "SW needs A320's" "EK needs ERJ-135's" "Skywest needs A380's" Just kidding. Didn't me
74 Icebird757 : ok, just drop it with that route, that will not be in our system for several years at the earliest, and no we will not by buying any other aircraft o
75 FA4B6 : Allthough I'm sure there would be some benefits to JetBlue getting some A319's, I think that the 320 is the perfect size for us right now -- so is the
76 A319XFW : The A321-200 comes as standard with more fuel than the usual A320 or A321 because the standard is to have an ACT (or 2) in there. The structure was s
77 Post contains links Supa7e7 : Yes, it looks like about 99% of A321s built since 2000 have been the -200 model with the tanks. In contrast, the A321s built 1993-1997 were mostly A32
78 Post contains images RayChuang : I think B6 is looking at buying a small number of A319's for longer routes such as BUR-JFK and SAN-BOS. It's too bad B6 didn't go with the Next-Genera
79 N1120A : Actually, without winglets, the 738 would have still been more reliable on the BUR-JFK run and been able to hold more passengers anyway
80 KensukeAida : IIRC, certain elements within B6 wanted the 737NG, but then Airbus approched them with a sweatheart of a deal. There were more then a few grumbles fr
81 N1120A : Of course they do, that is why WN bought them. What I was talking about was the uprating of their engines, done around the same time as the first win
82 A342 : My last attempt: what´s the range of the 85.5-ton MTOW 737-700 ? If you say it has more range than the HGW A319 and yet can´t tell us the exact num
83 N1120A : Extrapolate it. Take a look at the TCDS, because the figure is not published.
84 Post contains images A342 : Very suspicious for a company which wants to promote its products. But again, do you know the figure ?
85 A342 : Not published there either, only in aircraft operating manual. And TCDS states a MTOW of 171000 lbs, this would be 77.46 tonnes, not 85.5 tonnes whic
86 KensukeAida : I don't think it does... But then again, the figures published on this site are so screwed up. The A319 in HGW probably does edge out the 73G HGW. Bo
87 Icebird757 : I think your wrong. Actually it's too bad Boeing didn't want to sell us the 737NG family since we went to Boeing first for a/c. Their loss.....
88 Crogalski : a B6 Captain told me that they didnt go with the A319, because, one of the reasons being, the engines they would want on the A319, would have change
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...
Why Did NW Choose The A319 & 320? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 06:20:10 by MSPGUY
B6 And The 320 Winglets posted Tue Jul 25 2006 06:02:30 by WJA737
JetBlue 354 - Why The Diversion? posted Fri May 12 2006 19:01:38 by NiagaraFlyer
NZ And The A319 posted Sat Apr 15 2006 07:56:58 by Flyjetstar
Jetblue/B6 To Offer "Spa Kits" On Transcon Redeyes posted Tue Apr 4 2006 08:48:25 by UAPremierGuy
Did Jetblue Forget About The Midwest? posted Mon Mar 20 2006 03:16:52 by Phuebner
JetBlue (B6) Time Performance BOS-JFK posted Tue Jan 31 2006 01:19:24 by Farmenta
Jetblue (B6) Orlando To Puerto Rico posted Mon Jan 30 2006 17:32:07 by Lightsaber
JetBlue, RIC, And The Sm. Comm. Air Svc. Dev. Plan posted Wed Oct 12 2005 18:12:39 by D L X
India's Alliance Air And The A319? posted Fri Sep 30 2005 14:07:53 by JetMaster