User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 13221
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 5:48 am

But Airbus virtually gave them (A-320s) away, however maintenance costs and man hours would have been lower with the 737NG (so says B6's techs).

Also another great Gordon'ism from Gordon Bethune on B6,
"Most of these guys are smoking ragweed"  Smokin cool

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_om_story.jsp?id=news/om1202JBlu.xml
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
UPS763
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 7:00 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 5:54 am

A 738 with winglets would have looked sharp in the JetBlue scheme.  Smile


matt
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 6:02 am

I don't think Airbus gave those planes away. I think they did a better job selling it to Neeleman. Neeleman had no intention of buying A320s when he met with Airbus but Leahy pulled it off. I will find a link.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5578
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 6:20 am

"Gave" away can mean a lot of things. Airbus wanted a high-profile deal with JetBlue, recognized Neeleman as someone whose credentials granted instant credibility to the enterprise, and did what it took to make the deal work.

You can call that "giving planes away," or you can call it aggressive (and effective) marketing.

I prefer Boeings myself, but you can't help but admire a deal well-played, and this is one. As for me, I am looking forward evry much to seeing JetBlue's livery at DFW, preferably sooner than later.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 6:25 am

I agree. I also prefer Boeing across the board...but Airbus deserves credit for the JetBlue deal.
 
scottysair
Posts: 6442
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:07 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 7:26 am

What is deal with Jetblue wanted B737NG?? Why doesn't with Jetblue Airways for Boeing aircraft and nor want with airbus either. I am serious about with Boeing company at Jetblue? If Jetblue want made a credit for new B737-800 aircraft or probably will maybe not. Well, talk ya later!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 8:17 am

jetBlue will not switch aircraft at this point. As the article mentions, they are very happy with the aircraft and after the original training curve have found it to be a very maintenance friendly airplane.

They were comparing the costs of owning FBW vs non FBW aircraft primarily in the article, and there's no good comparison as the 777 is the only FBW Boeing presently made.

I didn't get from the article that they're unhappy with the plane at all.

N
 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 8:28 am


STT757 original post is a typical example of distorting
facts and a subjective interpretation of an article.
I happened to read the linked article, and the article
never mention anything like
''maintenance costs and man hours would have
been lower with the 737NG (so says B6's techs).''
The relevent sections of the article are:

>>
Extensive training also has helped the JetBlue
maintenance staff become comfortable with the Airbus
airplane itself. Many of the line technicians are New
York-born and -bred, and had an innate distrust of
the Airbus product compared to the made-in-the-USA
Boeing airplanes.
<<

and also

>>
"We were all Boeing guys; we didn't want Airbus,"
said Lopez. "Mechanics were afraid of Airbus (and all its)
new-generation stuff. But once you learn it, it is a maintenance-friendly plane."
<<

>>
"The burden of an A320 maintenance program is a little
higher than with a Boeing product," said Patel. "The
A320 is new to JetBlue, but not new to the industry. (Regarding) operator experience we're getting day in
and day out, yes, we have issues. Some are unresolved from Airbus; some have been around for a long time."
<<

As a matter of fact this ``maintenance burden'' of Jetblue
can also be read as an attitude problem from the personel.

Janos
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 9:27 am

I think what people dont look at is the real reason why Bethune doesnt believe in the end that Jetblue will be successful. They are brand new, and as a brand new company, all employees are at entry level salary (or there about), the planes are all brand new, and they are only flying routes that are high demand routes. As the years go on, people will want raises, unions may or may not get a bite into them, planes will need more maintenance and if Jetblue intends to grow, they will eventually have to start flying routes that are not as profitable as the cherry pickings they have at the moment. When salaries are in control, maintenance is reasonably low, debt repayments on planes are still at lower levels due to grace periods (some people think this means they have no aircraft payments, but according to reports, they still have payments, but at a better rate for the first few years or so), anyways, it is not difficult to make profit in this environment, but in a few years time this will change and they will struggle like the others. This is not to say they are not doing a great job, because they are, but they are evaluating a slightly unrealistic environment.

Jeremy
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:28 am

I think over the next few years the economy will start a more aggressive upward curve, and will provide some offset for the factors you're mentioning.

They're starting and running a great airline at the worst time in history to do so. In a way, it can only get better.

*fingers crossed*

N
 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:49 am

As for me, I am looking forward evry much to seeing JetBlue's livery at DFW, preferably sooner than later.

It doesnt look like we are in jetBlue's plans for at least the next 6 years. There was an article in the Morning News about how no low-fare carrier even wants to test the waters in Dallas in competion with AA because of the "predatory" tactics often used by the major carrier to drive smaller airlines out of the marketplace. What they were trying to say is, dont hold your breath.
America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
 
AerMickey
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 12:55 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:15 pm

Praise to thee of our father Gordon. Long live Boeing.

Mickey
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 13221
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:33 pm

Magyar,

From your own quotes,

"Extensive training", "The burden of an A320 maintenance program is a little
higher than with a Boeing product"

Which translates into more training , more man hours spent reading about the plane then working on the plane. I don't know how to dumb it down further for you, maybe someone else could explain it to you better.

""The burden of an A320 maintenance program is a little
higher than with a Boeing product"

"additional training JetBlue puts in on the A320 helps it deal with the spurious faults common with digital aircraft"

""It's an airplane that has a lot of spurious faults, and you have to reset a lot of the avionics systems," said Lopez."

""If you get the training on the airplane it works out well, but you need the "MAXIMUM" amount of training on this airplane."

"Airbus responded to comments regarding spurious faults: "The degree of scrutiny (with digital aircraft such as the A320) may be higher than with purely mechanical systems, but it is not higher than the 777,"

No , but it's higher than the 737NG.

"Clyde Kizer, president and COO, Airbus North America Customer Services, who added that such faults are common with digital airplanes"

"JetBlue maintenance managers admit, however, that the fly-by-wire A320 has given them more maintenance challenges than they would have had with a mechanically driven 737. "

"The A320 is new to JetBlue, but not new to the industry. (Regarding) operator experience we're getting day in and day out, yes, we have issues. Some are unresolved from Airbus; some have been around for a long time."

" There also are "constant electrical problems,"

"because of the (maintenance) challenges with the airplane"






Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 3619
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:53 pm

In 1995, United Airlines stock traded near $100 and people hailed the employee buyout as a big success. Eight years later, United is in the toilet. JetBlue will come down to earth as its planes age, its employees will become crusty and want more, and the model will begin to crack. For now, it is a great airline, but like everything else that goes up, it eventually will have to come down.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 1:00 pm

I'm sure the 737NG is not perfect, and in many ways its a far inferior plane especially in terms of takeoff performance, range, and cargo.

As the article itself said, once they got used to it, its a very maintenance friendly plane.

It also admitted right off that they were a bunch of Boeing bigots from the get-go, and that they've all grown to like the plane.

Its a balance. They like them. They neither hate them nor love them. It took some more training time, but now its a very maintenance friendly aircraft.

N
 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 1:15 pm


Look STT757, I am not going to argue about whether
the A320 or B737NG is cheaper to maintain without
facts.

All what I am saying is that you subjectively
interpreted the text and wrote it as fact.

Anyone is welcomed to read the link and form
his/her opinion. As I understood the maintenance
problems stem from the initial ``Boeing culture``
of the staff and from the unfamiliarity with the A320.
Yes, this may increase the cost in the beginning,
but does not necessary means that on the long run
(when the initial unfamiliarity and hick-ups are
worked out) the maintenance costs and man hours would
be lower with the 737NG.

Janos
PS:
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 13221
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 1:33 pm

Everything on Airliners.net is subjective, no one here is expecting their posts to be taken as fact or to be published.

So don't go jumping onto my posts dis-crediting me, Im reacting to the article "I" posted. If you have a different reaction than by all means "share your feelings with the group", otherwise keep it to yourself.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 2:25 pm

I think at the time B6 was being formed, Boeing was running its Renton, WA plant at full capacity just trying to keep up with 737NG demand from other airlines (this was around 1997-1998). No wonder why B6 had to ask Airbus for A320's.
 
skiordie
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2001 4:20 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 2:50 pm

The choice of Airbus planes for Jetblue had included a lot of marketing factors that supported the entire Jetblue marketing effort.

Not only was the airline new, the planes were, so new most people never flew in Airbus planes with pvt's. Jetblue advertisements, the few, emphasized the newness of everything they were doing, the pricing, service, comfort and oh yeah the planes, did I mention how new the planes are.

As a NYer, I can tell you that anything new is worth trying. You were treated to a fimilar, but sleaker, check-in and boarding. The planes were so new that most of the people I was checking out were playing with the pvt instead of looking out the window at the skyline of New York! Compare this treatment with a flight out of Islip on Southwest 737's, NY only other lost carrier, give Jetblue a awsume head start in it's home market. ( I hope I can say that with pride)

We can all argue that airlines are just selling transportation. Basicly that's it, but how we spend time traveling and how we treat ourselves, transport ourselves makes each of us different and each airline different. Each business has to define how it product is different that others. If it means that you use specific equipment, pricing or service that's how they will do it.

I enjoy the threads that I follow here on airliner.net. Some times I want to add my 10 cents.

Thanks for listening
Skiordie
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 4:36 pm

"They are flying only high-demand routes" - Bethune.

This is the classic complaint of established players in deregulated industries. The new entrent will "skim the cream" and let us poor old boys deal with low demand areas. You hear this prattle from the big boys in industries as diverse as telecommunication and public schooling.

I don't know if this is true with JetBlue, as I have not done the proper analysis. But with WN and the other Lo-co's do tend to do fly more on denser routes. The reason for this however, is NOT because the lo-co's are skiming the cream. It is because the lo-co's CREATED that traffic in the first place. Most of WN's biggest markets did not exist or where significantly smaller than when they first came. The "cream skimming" accusation is like watching someone build a huge mall on ground you sold to him cheap because you thought it was unprofitable to build there. Then, watching that mall succeed beyond your worst nightmares, you complain because he allegedly is stealing mall traffic from your own stores.

One classic case is in Long Beach. Few carred about Long Beach untill Jet Blue came in. Then Jet Blue comes and makes it a big market. Then other airliners, particularily American, have the gall to complain about being "shut out" of that market. Let someone else take the risks, manage his business well, and then say it is unfair that you're sorry A-- doesnt have YOUR fair share of what HE built. This is a strange definition of fairness. Don't know much about the other industries, but the "skimming the cream complaint" sounds like a load of BS to me when used in the airline industry.

Those who think low-co's are bad for small cities and routes, etc. should go to Spokane or upstate New York. Or Jackson, Miss. Or Bloomington, ILL. Or Wichita. Or South Padre. Or, on the other end of the scale, Baltimore, MDW, or Newark. There are many, many other places that have much more traffic than they used to because a lo-co entered the market. In fact, there are to many to list, even if you exclude WN.

Bethune's point about wage and union growth is a good one, however. Hopefully, by the time these costs begin to bite JetBlue, it will be big enough to enjoy some economies of scale that will offset these new costs.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 4:53 pm

"They are flying only high-demand routes" - Bethune.

Cloudy, does he also mention why his own company (or another major) didn't pick up those routes before Jetblue came along and snapped them?
If the major airlines didn't saturate the high demand routes they only have themselves to blame when upstarts find an opening there to enter the market.

Check Europe, where airlines like Rynair have to resort to trickery to make it seem they're flying to major destinations by distorting the names of airports (Frankfurt-Hahn for example, is 100km from Frankfurt...) because the large airports are filled to capacity by the large national carriers.

United (and the others) thought they could raise prices forever by deliberately serving destinations with less seats than there was a market for. Now someone's stepped in and filled that void...
I wish I were flying
 
Guest

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 5:19 pm

Jwenting

No airlines in Europe resort to 'trickery'. Airlines such as FR (Ryanair) clearly state on their website, the details of the airports which they use (location, maps, distances to the nearest major city or town, transport links etc.)

The reasons they use such airports are well-known...it saves them many $$$ in costs in all sorts of areas, as well as saving time on turnarounds, incentives, congestion etc.

Using major airports would probably eventually kill off the Ryanair model. Easyjet's policy of using costly major airports in Europe is already causing it a number of problems (increasing costs and lower load factors, which are essential isuues for a LCC).

Added to that, is the fact that the airport code is included, as is the regional name of the airport, at the time of booking and on all advertising posters i.e. Bologna-Forli, Oslo-Torp, London-Stansted.

The information is all there to make an informed decision, so I am afraid you are going to have to ditch this part of your argument above. No trickery on the part of Ryanair, or other LCCs, most probably due to legal obligations.

 
A320FO
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2000 12:28 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 6:46 pm

@ Capt.Picard
Considering the number of cases at certain courts, a lot of the European low-cost outfits are pushing it to the edge, yes, and some do use "tricks" and have to be called back by the judge. Ryanair with MOL certainly is a very hot candidate on this list.
By the way, if they fly to some out-of-the-way provincial airport, FR does try to disguise it as far as possible. They don't use Frankfurt-Hahn, they write it FRANKFURT-Hahn (-Hahn also is written in the smallest possible font, something the HTML code doesn't support).
 
Guest

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 7:40 pm

Sorry A320FO,

I am not concerned with court cases, I am merely concerned with the contention that these airlines some how 'trick' their customers.

You are assuming the customer is an idiot. (I can understand that, there are plenty of idiotic people in our world).

I cannot agree that Ryanair tries to 'hide' anything. It's plain to see, when making your booking, which airport you will be using. If you can't be bothered to spare a few seconds to check, that is your problem, not the airline's. All the necessary info is clear and legible on the internet and in the adverts.

Judging by the success of the airline, I would guess a significant number of people are quite happy with the airports Ryanair serve (some of which are the main airports anyway).

 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:12 pm

 Yawn Yawn Yawn Gordon's comment is once more an example that he is just jealous at several competitors and pissed off when other airlines are successful as well. And if these other successful airlines additionally operate Airbus he is pissed off even more...remember his comments about the A380? Well, his airline will never be able to operate that magnificent aircraft, from 2006 his airline will be in the shade of others like Qantas, Singapore Als, Emirates, Lufthansa, Air France, Virgin or others...what can he do? Yes, talking bad about the product to save his company's image.
The same now with jetBlue. They are growing fast and their loyal customers are increasing every day. What to do for Gordon to make sure his airline remains in the people's heads? Yes, talking bad about them.

As I already said some time ago: before talking crap about other airlines and other products he will never be able to purchase, he should shut up and take care about his prestigious ERJ145 jungle jet network and think about which cities in North Western Kansas he can connect with cities in South Eastern Indiana...  Laugh out loud


Regards
Udo
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 13221
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 12:03 am

UDO,

Of all those airlines you posted CO is the largest, who's in whos shadow? The US carriers aren't screaming bloody murder to fly European domestic flights like Branson is for the rights to fly in the US.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 12:07 am

Udo,

Gordon does not run a "jungle-jet" network anywhere. It is now a separate company. STT757 is right, Europeans salivate at the prospect of flying to exotic points such as NW Kansas and SE Indiana.

CO won't be in the shadow of anybody just because some other airlines operate 380s.
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 12:29 am

US airlines already have the access to the EU market don't they?
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:20 am

On the paper, ExpressJet and Continental are separate companies, but they're both adding their services together to a single CO brand. And Gordon as CEO of CO can well make decisions affecting both carriers. Or does anyone want to tell me that Gordon does not have a single bit of influence. Especially in times when new services in the CO network are only installed by CO Express?

Btw, size is not the dominant factor regarding the status of an airline. LH or AF might be smaller in terms of overall carried passengers, however, they carry much more international passengers than CO or any other US carrier.
Having the A380 in the fleet is an image or status issue, at least they can use it for adverstising and marketing. The world will have its eyes at the A380 once it is flying, similar at it happened when the B747 was introduced. LH, AF and the others will have THE innovation in their fleet, the airlines without it will for a certain time be in the shade of these.

And similar to that, jetBlue seems to be a very well known airline in the US only few years after start up. Size is not important, it's important to be recognized and be known in the public. Who talks about CO right now?


But even in case you are right: why does Gordon seem to be forced to get into the media focus all the time? Why does he have to tell crap stories about the A380 or jetBlue? Why does he tell that "these airlines which order the A380 will soon start charging for drinks and food" while he was the one who has started to charge?
He either does do that to get attention (for himself and his airline) or he was the one who started smoking ragweed...


Regards
Udo
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 13221
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 5:59 am

UDO,

You cannot use just International passengers as a measurement of an airlines "status", when flying across Europe one would cross a border every couple hundred miles. In the US you can fly thousands of miles half way across the globe from BOS to Hawaii and and still be on a domestic flight.

Where in Europe it's hard to fly for more than 45 minutes without crossing into another country.

If the BOS-LGA-DCA shuttle were in Europe it would pass through atleast three different countries and be considered an international flight, where You can fly from Presque Isle Maine to Maui Hawaii and never leave the US.

You cannot compare airlines by International passengers flown, only total number of passengers. LHR might be the busiest airport in terms of international travelers but Atlanta's Hartsfield airport is king because of the total number travelers, most of which are domestic passengers (mostly from one airline, Delta).
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:10 am

I'm sure Gordon's EWR-HNL flights exceeds any international flight in Europe by a lot. The A380 is not a signficant innovation technologically...it's just big. The A300 and A320 were innovative Airbus aircraft.
 
Greg
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:44 am

One comment, one observation:
The 737NG's and their respective 32X counterparts are, for all purposes, equal in operating cost. You can argue whether fly-by-wire is better or if the 73's wing is more efficient. When it comes down to it, only the financing makes a big difference.

JetBlue has been actively trying to get Airbus to develop the 320.5...with two extra rows of seats. For obvious reasons, Airbus is sour on this project. This would bring the seating capacity to the same level as the 737-800....

 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:22 am

I don’t want to get into an endless off topic discussion, but there are some points to add.

1. Inter-national doesn’t not only mean ‘distance’. It means exchange between different nations and cultures, no matter if they are one hour or ten hours away.
Apart from that LH, AF and BA are the most international carriers because they are just present all over the world. If you want to you can even leave out the EU for them, which is comparable to the US in size and population. LH, AF and BA would even be the most international carriers then since they are just present in uncountable countries, at almost every continent (minus Australia for LH and AF).
I doubt that Continental is very well know in most of Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe or Africa.

2. Innovations of the A380. The size of the aircraft alone requires many new innovations and ideas, otherwise the aircraft could never be operated economically. One aspect is weight. Carbon fiber will be used to an extent as never before, many major parts will be completely made out of it, such as the aft fuselage section, the central cerosine tank and the vertical stabilizer. For the layer of the fuselage, Airbus will use GLARE, a new material made partly of aluminium and glass fibre which helps to save large amounts of weight, without losing the stability of aluminium. Another innovation is the hydraulics system which will operate at a much higher pressure (5000 psi) than current systems. The advantage is less space and therefore less weight.
As far as the cockpit is concerned, the A380 will be the first aircraft ‘without paper’, OIS – Onboard Information System - will ensure paperless work for the pilots. ADRES – Aircraft Documentation Retrieval System - a kind of electronic library will inform about technical details on any possible level of the aircraft and can help to assist the pilots in solving problems. ECAM – Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring - will permanently supervise the aircraft’s systems and even provide links with technical support on the ground. ECAM will merge all the functions of current different systems, such as AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual, FOM (Flight Operation Manual) and POM (Pilot Operational Manual).
Another feature will be ESU – Ethernet Switch Unit – which will provide information like navigation maps and routing details without having to use the aircraft’s own systems.
At the end, we shouldn’t forget Airbus’ development of a completely new cabin with many new feature for the passengers.

The A300 and A320 were new designs and truly innovative aircraft – the A380 will be a new design as well, however, in terms of technical innovations it will outscore its predecessors.

If some people like it or not, the aircraft will cause attention for sure. And Airbus and the airlines will do anything to even increase these attention by uncountable marketing efforts. Have some guys forgotten what kind of attention (with success) Virgin Atlantic has always caused in the UK? You can be sure the new flagship of the world will make many airline CEOs jealous…and Gordon is only one of them.


Regards
Udo
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 13221
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:35 am

" you want to you can even leave out the EU for them, which is comparable to the US in size "

Which EU are you talking about, the European Union might have the same population as the US but the furtherst points between two EU member Nations is no where near the distance of many US States from one another.

The EU is about the same size (if not smaller) than the State of Alaska, it's a twelve hour flight from Alaska to NY. Flying from Dublin to Rome is not as far as NY-LA or BOS-San Diego, or Miami-Seattle.

Comparing airlines just by"international" passengers is not a accurate measurement of an airlines "status".

It's hard to throw a rock in Europe without hitting another country.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 13221
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:47 am

One of the busiest (if not the busiest) routes in the US is between NY and LA, a distance of some 2,600 miles.

The most heavily traveled routes in the EU are all within 1,000 miles , many within 500 miles.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:51 am

NYC-SFO isn't the calmest route, either, and its 2586 miles.

JFK-LAX is 2474 miles. A long way compared to intra-EU travel.  Smile

N
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:58 am

Perhaps jetBlue found something better in the A320 *shock* than the 737NG...ever thought of that?
BTW...Why are a lot of Americans against Airbus a/c??? eg DL, CO and AA never ordering Airbus...
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:01 am

I'm all for Airbus, and I don't think the traveling public minds them either.

It really comes down to the seating on the planes in terms of what the public cares about... the new seating on DL's 738s is horribly uncomfortable, I think. UA's cabin is just more comfortable.

In terms of what the aviation aficionados want... its all personal vendetta of some kind.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

N
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 13221
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:05 am

Actually both CO and DL have operated Airbus aircraft, DL was not pleased with the A-310s and went with more 767s.

And AA currently operates a fleet of some 30-35 A-300-600Rs.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Torsten Maiwald
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Martin Boschhuizen




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joerg A. Dittmer

Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 13221
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:11 am

The biggest problem most Americans have with Airbus is that it was "created" by European Gov'ts, while Boeing was created by individual citizens and as most companies are run (for profit).

Airbus started out as a not for profit multi Nation agency who's sole purpose was take away market share from Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas, all three of which are/were private companies created by individual's vision and hard work.

Where Airbus was artificially created through subsidies, no way around that.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:18 am

I think its safe to argue that both Boeing and Douglas were created, directly or indirectly, by the US Military, and directly controlled by them in the early-to-mid 20th century.

Boeing continues to survive on very lucrative military contracts. The Airbus component of EADS is profitable on its own.

They both get the same amount of support, they just get it differently.

Until we all grow degrees in international business, followed by MBAs, I don't think any of us are qualified to discuss this much.

N
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 13221
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:25 am

Actually Boeing's first sale was not a military sale, but a international sale to a New Zealand flying school.

http://boeing.com/companyoffices/history/boeing/bw.html
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
727_Gal
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:26 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:35 am

whoa... way off topic here, people!
I think B6 is perfectly content with their A320s now. It sounds, from the article, that they were scared of the unknown (the A320) when they began. Perhaps they would have less maintenance problems with the 737NG, but that's neither here nor there and jetBlue is doing a wonderful job, maintenance-wise and otherwise, with their Airbuses (Airbusi?  Big grin)
 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:27 pm

>>
The biggest problem most Americans have with Airbus is
that it was "created" by European Gov'ts, while Boeing was
created by individual citizens and as most companies are
run (for profit).

Airbus started out as a not for profit multi Nation agency
who's sole purpose was take away market share from Boeing,
Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas, all three of which
are/were private companies created by individual's vision
and hard work.

Where Airbus was artificially created through subsidies,
no way around that.
<<

So what, I don't give damn. Business is not fair, not
nice, and it never was especially not the high-profile
ones like military/space/aviation.
BTW, isn't the above method what
the major airlines use to kill start ups. They move in with
extreme low fares (they can afford it the start up
cannot) and once the start-up is dead they increase
the price. It is not fair but they do that regularly.
Why is it accepted if a major airline does that?

STT757 if you take this free-trade BS seriously, you
don't get anywhere in aviation, especially not in the
late 20th or early 21st century. This hard-working/vision
hogwash does not get you anywhere.

Janos
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:41 pm

Oh my god, should we all give a big sorry that evil Airbus took away market share? I guess some people would love to see a Boeing monopoly...the question is: would these wise people ever realize that THEY THEMSELVES would have to pay the bill?
STT757, is it possible that you see your country and yourself continuously as a victim somehow? Be sure, we are with you and say sorry whenever you want us to.

Btw, I said inter-national is not an aspect of distance at first place, but of exchange of different nations or cultures. If you travel from Helsinki to Athens you find yourself in a 'different world', which cannot be said for travelling from BOS to SFO.


Regards
Udo
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Jet Blue Originally Wanted 737NGs...

Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:16 pm

Jwenting,

Read the whole post before commenting on it. I make virtually the same points as you, yet you seem to think I'm agreeing with Bethune.

As to Airbus's profitability... usually a subsidized company's profits include subsidies(direct and hidden) in the profit figures. The US airlines sure did that with 9-11 aid. I don't really know if this is true with Airbus, however. Airbus's accounting is hard to understand. As is the accounting of US aerospace companies - Boeing was able to hide its production problems at the end of the 1990s from some very smart people on Wall Street for a very long time.

So, to Airbus lovers... shouldn't be seen as a single company (though it is now, in effect). It was started as a coalition of four main partners - both of which did allot of military and civil work and poured that money into the development of the A300 and A310, and later aircraft.These partners have the same history of doing military work as Boeing has. And allot of the money to start Airbus came not only from government aid but from the profits of these 4 companies. And if ya think France doesn't give preference to Dassault when buying military aircraft, just like the US government gives preference to US companies, I've got a bridge to sell you.

to Boeing lovers...yes, in effect Airbus started like Boeing did because the initial partners were companies like Boeing. Boeing isn't all that different, it is the end result of a long history of mergers. There was more government involvement with Airbus, especially at the start. But then again, the US is one country. The Airbus partners came from different, smaller countries. Without government involvement, it probably would have been impossible to form the four main partners into a single viable competitor. The initial subsidies simply balanced out the US advantage of being a single country relatively untouched by war.

Who is online