Qatar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 1155 times:
JETBLUE PLACES FIRST AIRBUS ORDER IN 2002 - New York airline orders 10 more A320s
14 January 2002
Continuing its growth as an airline and its success with Airbus aircraft, New York City (JFK)-based JetBlue Airways has penned an order for 10 additional A320s. Deliveries of these new additions are slated to begin this year and run through 2005. The newly-ordered aircraft, like all of JetBlue’s A320s, will be powered by International Aero Engines V2500s.
“Despite the airline industry’s current climate, JetBlue is moving forward with its original controlled growth business plan,” said David Neeleman, JetBlue’s Chief Executive Officer. “More than four million customers have come to love our brand new A320s as a safe, reliable and comfortable way to travel for business and pleasure. We look forward to welcoming many more aboard our new fleet this year and in the years to come.”
“JetBlue continues to defy convention,” said Noël Forgeard, CEO of Airbus. “It has found great and rapid success as a start-up by remaining cutting edge both in its aircraft selection and in its low-fare, high-service product. Airbus is very proud to be a part of the continuing JetBlue triumph. We are also, of course, very pleased that they have again selected the A320 to grow their fleet.”
Including these 10 additional aircraft, JetBlue has placed orders for a total of 74 A320 aircraft, putting the carrier among Airbus’ top-five customers for the aircraft type. Each of JetBlue’s A320s carries 162 passengers in a roomy single-class configuration, offering LiveTV and leather upholstery in every seat.
Designed to optimize passenger comfort and maximize cost savings, the A318, A319, A320 and A321 form the world's most profitable and best-selling single-aisle aircraft family. All derived from the same fuselage, the A320 Family provides operators with the highest degree of commonality and economy for aircraft in the 107-185 seat category
With the world’s most modern and extensive airliner family on offer, Airbus consistently wins about half of large airliner sales - 100 seats and above - and currently has firm orders for more than 4,400 airliners from some 200 customers and operators around the globe. Airbus is a joint EADS Company with BAE SYSTEMS.
Airplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 9 hours ago) and read 1035 times:
Jetblue seems to be sticking with Airbus (no big surprise). It would be great to see them expand their fleet and order some A318s, A319s, and A321s. It would be the best though if they decided to start a new market and become the first longhaul lowfare airline with aircraft like the A340 and the A330. They could fly everywhere! Europe, Asia, South America! It would be great!
Jeff G From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 431 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 9 hours ago) and read 1015 times:
JetBlue won't be ordering anything but 320's for the foreseeable future. The increase in overhead and the scheduling complexity created by adding another aircraft type, even a variant, makes it not worth the trouble. There's very little a 321 could do for JB that a 320 doesn't do already. A 319 or 318 would actually be a step or two backward. And a 330 or 340 is so far out of whack with the business plan it's not even worth going into.
Jaws707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 708 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 7 hours ago) and read 976 times:
I was thinking the A318 would be a good plane for them. They can use it to expand to smaller markets or increase frequencies on some routes. Just an idea though.
Jeff G From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 431 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 914 times:
Why would the A318 be a good idea? Nearly identical costs, 50 less seats. Scheduling problems: one of the main reasons the JB business model is working so well is that any crew member *and* any aircraft is able to perform any trip. Introduce any other aircraft type and that now becomes a problem. The economies of having a single fleet type would be lost. Again, on the whole, there's nothing a shortened A320 can do that a full size A320 can't do just as well. If there's a need for another size aircraft, it won't fit the business model for a long time (5+ years at least).
Brains From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 255 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months ago) and read 871 times:
Its brilliant of JetBlue to stick exclusively with their V2500 powered A320's. Think about the ease of maintinance, and training only operating one a/c type. Its a beautiful plan.
Hoffa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months ago) and read 865 times:
Although B6 is a nice little airline, they have a lot of work to do before becoming a "longhaul, lowfare" airline (not too many of those anyway). They are still unprofitable although quickly closing the gap.
Jeff G From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 431 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 847 times:
JetBlue is by no means unprofitable. We earned a nice profit on the first three quarters of last year, and for the whole year. The numbers aren't out yet for 4Q, but it's expected to be slightly positive. If there is a loss it won't come close to wiping out the gains we made on the rest of the year. In addition, we would be profitable even without the gov't handouts last year. We were profitable for 2001, and are still profitable now.
And we are most certainly a low-fare airline, but not long-haul. Medium-haul maybe, including quite a bit of transcon service. Long-haul implies trans-ocean travel.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7693 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 818 times:
I still contend that by 2005-2006 B6 will be flying A321's.
The reason is simple: they need the additional capacity for JFK-FLL/PBI flights. B6 could easily fill an A321 using the type of seating pitch they now use on their A320's.
If B6 does order the A321, expect them to also use them on the JFK-LGB transcon route.
Magyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 596 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 809 times:
Raychuang wrote:
>>
I still contend that by 2005-2006 B6 will be flying A321's.
<<
Assuming that Jetblue will be around in 2005. Just to be
accurate. I have nothing against them, but they are
start up airlines and yet to show that they can survive
on the long term.
Jeff G From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 431 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 806 times:
*Shrug*. You have your opinion, Ray, but I can tell you that JB is strongly leaning against the A321. It turns out that the 321 isn't merely a 320 with more seats. There are several systems that are different, with different parts. This means doubling the maintenance inventory in some cases for the sake of 20 to 30 more seats. I've already mentioned the scheduling headaches involved. JB's strategy is to add flights when demand dictates, which is what's happening at FLL and PBI. It's still cheaper in the long run to operate two half full A320's than one full A321, believe it or not. The direct operating costs may be more on those segments, but the enormous efficiency gains when you stick with only one aircraft type have to be taken into account. A few more seats just isn't worth it.
This same argument is used against the A319 for transcon flights. Sure, there might be a few less fuel stops in the winter with the A319, but most of those are eliminated anyway if you'd top the plane off with gas and block a couple of seat rows. Which essentially gives you an A319 on demand. Those few flights where you'd still need to stop for fuel are just taken into account as the cost of doing business. Putting an A319 on the route would cost even more overall.
Jeff G From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 431 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 794 times:
Yeah, there are no plans to charge for the PTV's. JB was originally going to charge $5, but that policy was never implemented. I guess the little money that JB foregoes by not charging is more than made up for with positive word of mouth and goodwill. It's just not worth it to nickel-and-dime your customers.
I flew a couple of weeks ago in an aircraft with the LiveTV deferred (inop). We credited everyone $5 for the inconvenience, but there were a couple of customers who wanted to ride free because of the grievous bother of not having free TV! Sometimes those goodwill gestures can be a negative.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 596 posts, 
Those few flights where you'd still need to stop for fuel are just taken into account as the cost of doing business. Putting an A319 on the route would cost even more overall.
Sometimes those goodwill gestures can be a negative.
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 816 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
