The reason is simple: long hauls make more money. You can turn higher yields easier.
You burn a lot of gas crusing up to 30000 ft asl. Your dont' burn that much once you're up there at cruise. It doesn't make as much sense to climb up there for an hour an a half flight, when you could climb up there at sit at cruise for 4 or 5 hours.
Look at flt B6
, you can't charge high fares on that market but you still have to climb upto a high crusiing alt such as maybe 20000 burning just as much gas to get to a cruising altitude as you would to say fly to LGB
where you can get people to pay $200 to $300 for a one way ticket vs. a JFK BTV
ticket which averages about $59 each way.
Before 9/11 jetBlue was planning on serving a number of cities in the midwest. IND
was the main one, don't know if it's still planned tho. The A320 wasn't really designed to do lots of cycles on short hops like WN
does with the 737. Mind you short hauls can be done, but it was said to me that it puts unneeded wear and tear on the aircraft. That was one of the reasons the EMB-190 is being brought into the B6
More than likely, and this is just a guess from what i've heard; you'll see the short hauls out of JFK
such as BUF
go to like 10 flights a day with the EMB-190. Each one of those cities will continue to see A320s with florida service as well as westcoast service once they open the new west coast hub... Ops did I say new west coast hub?
In anycase, since we're excecised our options on the A320s and prob will on the 190s once they come online we'll be getting as many as 6 aircraft a month. From what I know as has been said in news releases they want to cover the midwest and east coast doing "point to point" flying. Even with the new JFK
terminal being built there is just no way to have every flight going through JFK
. Plus people like nonstops that are point to point. Who wants to go through a hub if they don't hafta, aside from all the A.netters.
Hope this ansered some of your questions.