Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Back To The Future" For B6  
User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 396 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6251 times:

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stoc...cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

I admire Neeleman for owning up to JetBlue's recent troubles and being proactive in trying to fix them. But I did not realize that the E190s were so troublesome. Perhaps they should have opted for the A318........

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6244 times:

Quoting FLALEFTY (Thread starter):
Perhaps they should have opted for the A318

It has been reported numerous times that the A318's are to heavy of a plane for what B6 needs.



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 396 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days ago) and read 6185 times:

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 1):
It has been reported numerous times that the A318's are to heavy of a plane for what B6 needs.

I know the 318 v.s. 190 debate is old news. But with the rough start of 190 service hurting B6's bottom line, it makes me wonder if the heavier-but-more-reliable 318 might have been a better fit, after all.


User currently offlineFLAIRPORT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 days ago) and read 6113 times:

If I could pinpoint one day:
The massive snowfall in NYC last month caused massive delays and cancellations, leading to a lot of money lost and customers lost. I hope they learned from their mistakes.

However, Neeleman is very bright. I don't think he regrets (nor should regret) any decision he makes. If he had stayed along plan, B6 would not be a major player imho. So, maybe adding the origional plan, with the B6 name out there, and with Independence gone, will make it easier to succede in these areas. And the E190 should have all of thier kinks out soon, and I have no doubt that their reliablilty will increase as the year goes on. A lot of people are making this to be a major issues to B6...I call it a reality check: no airline is safe, not even WN...but those airlines are smart and still in a position to move out of the downward spiral if you can call it that, and move back to profitiblity.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21417 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6001 times:

Quoting FLALEFTY (Thread starter):
But I did not realize that the E190s were so troublesome.

While I understand they had some teething pains, how do you get this statement from the article. The E190 is mentioned in passing, not as the main cause for the trouble. The main cause for the trouble is choosing the wrong routes. Interesting that the list of 44 original cities is still not filled. As per another thread, it's also interesting to me that they generally have left the "red" cities out of their plan and focused primarily on "blue" cities. All those cities he named that they failed to add are red leaning cities, after all...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 396 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5986 times:

Quoting FLAIRPORT (Reply 3):
If I could pinpoint one day:
The massive snowfall in NYC last month caused massive delays and cancellations, leading to a lot of money lost and customers lost. I hope they learned from their mistakes.

You are right, the weather that day was beyond B6's control, but all frustrated passengers will typically say is, "They (The airline that delayed them) are the worst airline in the world!" But eventually, memories of such unfortunate incidents will fade away.

Quoting FLAIRPORT (Reply 3):
And the E190 should have all of thier kinks out soon, and I have no doubt that their reliablilty will increase as the year goes on. A lot of people are making this to be a major issues to B6...I call it a reality check:

Yeah, I did not mean to slight the E190, because every new jet has to go through teething problems, no matter who builds it. Eventually, the E190 will be a good, reliable performer for B6, it just surprised me that they chose to be a launch customer when they are also so new. Bigger, legacy airlines have the cushion of easing new jets into service and still having their older planes available for back-up until all of the dispatch reliability bugs are worked out. With the E190, B6 has no back up.


User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2848 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5952 times:

While the E190 had (and still has) some teething pains, it is becoming more reliable. In fact I got an e-mail today indicating that friday didn't see many delays at all for the E190 which operated 20+% more on-time than the A320. Also, with most of the units flying the E190 not being interchangeable with the A320, big hits were taken on stocking up on the necessary parts for the a/c and then starting to chart what parts were failing...both time and money consuming. But things are leveling out a little now. I am curious how Air Canada and COPA are doing with their E190 fleet.


"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7482 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5937 times:

Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 2):
Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 1):
It has been reported numerous times that the A318's are to heavy of a plane for what B6 needs.

I know the 318 v.s. 190 debate is old news. But with the rough start of 190 service hurting B6's bottom line, it makes me wonder if the heavier-but-more-reliable 318 might have been a better fit, after all.

Too bad B6 passed over the 717 when it decided to go with the E190. Had B6 opted for the 717:

1. Production would not be ending at Long Beach this May.

2. They wouldn't have encountered as many teething problems with the 717 because the type was already in production (when B6 started). FL & TW along w/Boeing already sorted any 717 teething problems that might've existed when it first rolled out.

[Edited 2006-03-20 19:00:02]


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineRichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4199 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5751 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
The main cause for the trouble is choosing the wrong routes. Interesting that the list of 44 original cities is still not filled.

Wrong routes? How so?
And who said the airline had to fly to the original 44 listed cities? I'm not sure, but I think they were examples of the types of cities the "new" airline could fly to - doesn't sound like any obligation to me. If I recall correctly, California didn't figure into JetBlue's original plan nearly as much as it does today. Hey, you go where the money is.



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24641 posts, RR: 86
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5693 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FLAIRPORT (Reply 3):
I don't think he regrets (nor should regret) any decision he makes.

By his own admission, he regrets becoming "enamoured" of the trans-cons. That's a fairly alarming statement.

There must be days when he wonders if he should have swapped a few A320 orders (by his own admission, they may have too many coming) for some A319's for the trans-cons - or even a few A318's?

Surely, he has to have some concerns about staking his LA claim at LGB, with its considerable limitations.

We know he is having second thoughts (if not actual "regrets") about ordering quite so many aircraft to be delivered quite so soon.

And if the chosen routes are problematic, maybe it's time they did something about the route planning department.

You are right in one sense - no one should "regret" their decisions - but it would seem there needs to be an overhaul of thinking at JetBlue.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5587 times:

Quoting FLALEFTY (Thread starter):
I admire Neeleman for owning up to JetBlue's recent troubles and being proactive in trying to fix them. But I did not realize that the E190s were so troublesome. Perhaps they should have opted for the A318........

In general, I still maintain that there is a a ideal zone for larger carriers. Simply put, don't fly anything with under 100 seats, or anything with more then 250 seats. While F9 and FL have shown that it is possible to efficently run a LCC with two types of planes (F9 - A318 and A319 and FL with the 717 and 737) and southwest has juggled more then four types at once, the trouble B6 has had introducting the E190 strongly suggests that running more then one aircraft vendor is problimatic at best.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 9):
By his own admission, he regrets becoming "enamoured" of the trans-cons. That's a fairly alarming statement.

The transcon markets used to be the same money maker that the international market is now. When fragementation hit first using 767 and 757s and then even smaller planes hit the profit margins and the transcons really became a bloody mess.

I think the lessons are pretty obvious. You either have to have extremly low costs, or extremly high servers. Dumping capacity on the market will kill you. Expecting loyalty on these flights will also kill you.

International carriers: Take note. This will happen to you

Quoting Mariner (Reply 9):
There must be days when he wonders if he should have swapped a few A320 orders (by his own admission, they may have too many coming) for some A319's for the trans-cons - or even a few A318's?

I think it proves that F9 got the fleet sourcing and location right. Part of that is just the advantage of DEN, it's the largest capacity airport in the middle of the country, but part of that is their mix of A319 and A318 have been right on the money for their markets. In their case DEN also makes it possible to add A320 on certain markets without the huge penalties that B6 has been seeing but I think that F9 is on the "right size" here.

I think this also emphasizes something that Neeleman ought to look at. Having his hubs in New York and Long Beach mean a ton of transcons. He should (imho) look somewhere in the middle of the country for another hub that would let him split his traffic a bit more efficently (given his operating restrictions with the A320s). JFK <-> LGB should be a non-stop, other desitinations on the west coast would be better served by a better hubbing structure.


User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7482 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5540 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 10):
While F9 and FL have shown that it is possible to efficently run a LCC with two types of planes (F9 - A318 and A319 and FL with the 717 and 737) and southwest has juggled more then four types at once, the trouble B6 has had introducting the E190 strongly suggests that running more then one aircraft vendor is problimatic at best.

A few comments about the above-comparisons:

1. IIRC, the 318/319 are essentially the same plane type; one's just a shortened version (actually, the 318 is a double-shrink of the 320 whereas the 319 is only a single shrink). Therefore F9's mainline fleet maintains fleet commonality.

2. While WN, at on time, flew as many as 4 types of 737s (-200, -300, -500 & -700); the fact remains that all the planes are still one basic type, just several versions depending on vintage.

3. While FL's fleet of 717s & 737s are truly indeed 2 different types (FL originally did not want to go this route but Boeing was not going to offer either a stretched or a longer-range 717 unless there were additional takers); one needs to keep in mind that FL's original fleet (pre-J7 merger) was all 732s. So in essence, many FL pilots already had 737 experience when the newer 73Gs came on line. That's an advantage that B6 did not have when the E190s came on line.

[Edited 2006-03-20 22:44:11]


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12421 posts, RR: 100
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5467 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 11):
So in essence, many FL pilots already had 737 experience when the newer 73Gs came on line. That's an advantage that B6 did not have when the E190s came on line.

Interesting point. While I'm aware IFR landings have stricter guidelines if the pilot has < 100 hours in that type, how long does the experience stay in the pilots record before it expires? For example, from the FL 732's, would that experience still translate to the 73G's expire after two years, five, ten, or indefinitely? I'm just curious.

Note: When will B6 start promoting E190 co-pilots to pilot? IIRC it was at 9 months, but notice I'm asking. By the end of 60 days with the type, I would think that a pilot would understand the quirks of the aircraft. What I'm getting at is when will B6 have enough pilots familiar with the E190 that pilot experience with the type is no longer a contributing factor to the delays and shortened daily flight times.

Second question, I notice on June 30th a lot more E190 flights on their routemap. Is this due to B6 booking greater duty cycles on the E190's or just the arrival of more aircraft?

Also, what is the start day of the most junior B6 pilots? For the A320? E190? Airline pilot central hasn't updated their Jetblue page for quite a few months! Obviously, that sort of data goes stale quick. Or did I miss an update and this is accurate (Jan 2004, with the most junior pilot on an A320!?!)
http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/a...ational-lcc/jetblue-2005030451.htm

Thanks,
Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineDacman From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 444 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5406 times:

Yep, it would have made more sense to go with the MD-95 (717-200) but you can't give airplanes away either and when an airline wants birds for next to nothing what can you do.

Then again maybe the airline won't be around for to many more years either with the way things seem to be going......stay tuned.

Mike
dacman
LGB/LAX Local



"Airliner Photography is not a crime"
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7482 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5186 times:

Unfortunately Lightsaber,

I do not have answer(s) to your questions, since that's not the line of work I'm employed in.

The information on my posts was based on simple deductive reasoning(s). While there probably is some transitional training that a 732 (or 733) pilot might have to undergo in order to be certified to fly a 73G (can any pilots on A.net confirm this?); I believe it's a fairly safe assumption that the amount of time (& money) spent on that training/recertifications (if any) pales in comparision to training a pilot on a totally different make & type of airplane.

Another point worth mentioning would be, how many FL pilots (who weren't w/the original FL) that joined the airline already had 737 experience w/another airline? Compare that to how many B6 pilots having E190 (or even E170) experience before joining them. Mind you, this is not necessarily a knock on B6 (any airline that chose the type may have faced a similar experience); this is just pointing out the potential risk associated with choosing a completely new type of plane.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5006 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 7):
2. They wouldn't have encountered as many teething problems with the 717 because the type was already in production (when B6 started). FL & TW along w/Boeing already sorted any 717 teething problems that might've existed when it first rolled out.

True, they just would have been stuck with the high operating costs of the 717.

The only reason it works for FL is because Boeing sold every airplane they bought at a loss (because they were committed to 150 shipsets).

Steve


User currently offlineWMUPilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 1473 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4956 times:

Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 6):
While the E190 had (and still has) some teething pains, it is becoming more reliable. In fact I got an e-mail today indicating that friday didn't see many delays at all for the E190 which operated 20+% more on-time than the A320. Also, with most of the units flying the E190 not being interchangeable with the A320, big hits were taken on stocking up on the necessary parts for the a/c and then starting to chart what parts were failing...both time and money consuming. But things are leveling out a little now. I am curious how Air Canada and COPA are doing with their E190 fleet.

I too got the email and am glad to see the E190 is starting to come out of the "teething" stage. I haven't gotten a chance to fly a leg on the new planes yet but I can't wait to do so. I was talking with a mechanic in the van one day and he was saying the same as the email. A lot of the original problems are getting worked out and the plane is really starting to show it's potiential!!



JetBlue - Bringing humanity back to air travel
User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4948 times:

Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 2):
it makes me wonder if the heavier-but-more-reliable 318 might have been a better fit, after all.

It may well could have been, F9 is having a great time flying them.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
As per another thread, it's also interesting to me that they generally have left the "red" cities out of their plan and focused primarily on "blue" cities. All those cities he named that they failed to add are red leaning cities, after all...

Is SLC in the blue or red?

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 11):
3. While FL's fleet of 717s & 737s are truly indeed 2 different types (FL originally did not want to go this route but Boeing was not going to offer either a stretched or a longer-range 717 unless there were additional takers); one needs to keep in mind that FL's original fleet (pre-J7 merger) was all 732s.

Don't forget the DC-9-32's!

Quoting Dacman (Reply 13):
Then again maybe the airline won't be around for to many more years either with the way things seem to be going......stay tuned.

For me, B6 is to be avoided as much as DL.



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7482 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4897 times:

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 15):
True, they just would have been stuck with the high operating costs of the 717.

 confused  You must be joking on the high operating costs part; at least as far as fuel burn is concerned. Both FL & HA reported significant fuel savings w/the 717 compared the DC-9s they had before. HA only used 4 supplemental fuel tanks for the Long Beach-HNL ferry flights as opposed to either 6 or 8 tanks w/their old DC-9-50s.

A few years back FL terminated the Air Wisconsin/Jet Connect CRJ services they offered for a short time because they (FL) discovered that it was cheaper for them to use their 717s instead of someone else's CRJs.

If by high operating costs you mean due to the choosing a different type of plane (no commonality with their existing fleet) altogether; how much more costly would a 717 be vs. the E190 for B6?

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 15):
The only reason it works for FL is because Boeing sold every airplane they bought at a loss (because they were committed to 150 shipsets).

It was reported that Boeing only needed to sell 200 airframes to break even (the final production count will be 156); had TW's original order survived (whether through them or AA), the 200 mark would've easily been obtainable.

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 17):
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 11):
3. While FL's fleet of 717s & 737s are truly indeed 2 different types (FL originally did not want to go this route but Boeing was not going to offer either a stretched or a longer-range 717 unless there were additional takers); one needs to keep in mind that FL's original fleet (pre-J7 merger) was all 732s.

Don't forget the DC-9-32's!

I'm well aware of FL's/J7's old DC-9-32s, thank you. The point to my earlier above-post was focusing on FL adding a newer type (the 73G) to their existing young fleet of 717s as it relates to B6's adding E190s to their fleet of A320s.

Last time I checked, the focus of this thread is supposed to be B6Big grin



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4886 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 18):
Last time I checked, the focus of this thread is supposed to be B6.

LOL, but Airtran is MUCH more fun to talk about, and fly!



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7482 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4856 times:

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 19):

Since B6 doesn't serve anywhere near PHL, I haven't had a chance to fly them; so I can't make a personal experience comparison.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
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...
Delta & LAX: Back To The Future posted Tue Jul 25 2006 03:07:49 by Fewsolarge
Back To The Future.Flying Cars? posted Thu Jan 6 2005 22:15:23 by Psa53
When Did DL Switch Back To The More "angled" Logo? posted Mon Mar 6 2006 17:39:15 by Avi8tir
Back To The 727 Days posted Sun Nov 19 2006 20:26:43 by Magyarorszag
Back To The Futur : From Electra To A380 (vid) posted Sat May 13 2006 20:28:41 by Airboeing
What Does The Future Hold For JetBlue? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 05:29:32 by JetBlueAUS
Transbrasil Back To The Air In 2006 posted Sun Jan 29 2006 20:10:50 by TR763
What's The Future Hold For Sheffield City Airport posted Sun Jan 1 2006 23:55:25 by Gilesdavies
US Looking To Bring Call Center Back To The U.S. posted Thu Dec 8 2005 05:57:24 by SonOfACaptain
Will CO Ever Go Back To The Noon EWR-HKG? posted Mon Nov 28 2005 04:49:09 by Diesel33