flyboy7974
Posts: 1210
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:35 pm

B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:52 pm

so this is interesting, all day the flights make it nonstop, then while it's cooler out, the night flight stops in slc for fuel, just got to slc at 1142pm, must be the winds again, but would think that it being cooler at night wouldnt cause that. i was in the s.f valley earlier today and the weather wasn't bad, drove down to sna for my hp flight and it was overcast, the june gloom in l.a., but no winds
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 20466
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:58 pm

Enroute winds and thunderstorms in the Midwest lead to the need for a stop enroute.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:59 pm

I'm curious - why SLC? There are other cities more on the direct route.

I know B6 doesn't have any 319's, but would that be a better choice for BUR-JFK?
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 20466
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:10 pm

Suspect SLC was chosen tonight as its along the way for the route of flight, its an online station, and had staff on duty covering their own JFK flight during the evening hours anyways.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13807
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm

It's either SLC or LAS, depending on the flight plan, no?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
airplaneboy
Posts: 556
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:22 pm

Yes....there was a lot of storm activity over the midwest today. We flew DTW-DEN and finally DEN-MCI. On our first leg out of DTW, we had to take an alternate routing more northerly than usual. Once on the ground, the ramp was closed due to lightning activity. Once we were on our way, we had a BUMPY ride all the way to MCI. The lightning shows outside our window were spectacular at 37,000 feet. We flew right below the storm (south), although we did see a couple of aircraft enter the storm clouds. Interesting day for weather. Even our captain, who has flown for over 30 years says that he hasn't been on a flight as bumpy as ours in years.

Fly safe everyone.

Cheers!

AirplaneBoy
 
highflier92660
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:07 pm

I know B6 can do no evil, but one of these days I wish the (aeronautically educated) flying public would take them to task for these transcontinental non-stops that are, in fact, diverting for technical reasons (i.e. fuel.) Jet Blue is using the A320 at the extreme end of its performance envelope from BUR to JFK. The same technical stops occur out of Long Beach and westbound out of BOS to the west coast.

If United or Delta were stopping as frequently to re-fuel enroute, the howls of protest would reach from corporate headquarters all the way to Washington. But being Jet Blue they escape under the radar. So far. They are so well liked that some in the general public have suggested that B6 fly to HNL out of JFK non-stop...in an A320.

Now that's one trick I'd like to see.
 
bpat777
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 1999 8:21 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:22 pm

Excellent post Highflier92660..There seems to be a double standard when it comes to B6 and the legacy carriers..It often seems to me that B6 can do no wrong according to some of the post on A.net..
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:27 pm

What I would like to see is a reduction of 1 LAX-JFK Song flight and the addition of two JFK-BUR flights. The 757 would ensure the flights are non-stop coming and going.
 
jblake1
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 10:25 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:49 pm

I would be pissed if I was on a "non-stop" flight and had to stop for fuel. This "technical" stop has got to add at least an hour onto the flight; if not more.
 
laca773
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:10 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:49 pm

Good Morning,
Does anyone know if B6 has ever considered getting 319s to deal with this specific purpose as well as for thinner, transcon routes? This seems like it would be a good idea?
Have a good day.
LACA773
 
nkops
Posts: 2161
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:09 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 12:38 am

I think if this becomes a habit (which appears it might)... the flying public will eventually catch on. (Then again, I might be over estimating the public!!)
:evil:
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13807
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 12:55 am

Quoting Jblake1 (Reply 9):
I would be pissed if I was on a "non-stop" flight and had to stop for fuel. This "technical" stop has got to add at least an hour onto the flight; if not more.

I keep hearing how common it is, but it can't be that common, since I've never had it happen and I've flown all over the world and around the US tons, just not on B6. And I don't recall anyone in my family telling me about one, either, and they also fly a lot. Only fuel stop ever for me was an AA777 out of NRT that had to be diverted because texas was closed, and we landed in DEN. We needed more fuel to get back to DFW, but that's not just a minor reroute. That was a whole state closed due to storms and 2.5 extra hours in the air.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8024
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:04 am

Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 8):
What I would like to see is a reduction of 1 LAX-JFK Song flight and the addition of two JFK-BUR flights. The 757 would ensure the flights are non-stop coming and going.

Mind you, the 757-200 carries way more fuel and has better takeoff performance than the A320, so BUR-JFK nonstop year-round is not an issue. That's why the late National Airlines (N7) flew the 752--the plane could operate out of LAS even in Las Vegas' hottest summers to fly all the way to JFK with no pax/cargo restrictions.
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:07 am

Quoting AirplaneBoy (Reply 5):
Yes....there was a lot of storm activity over the midwest today. We flew DTW-DEN and finally DEN-MCI. On our first leg out of DTW, we had to take an alternate routing more northerly than usual. Once on the ground, the ramp was closed due to lightning activity. Once we were on our way, we had a BUMPY ride all the way to MCI. The lightning shows outside our window were spectacular at 37,000 feet. We flew right below the storm (south), although we did see a couple of aircraft enter the storm clouds. Interesting day for weather. Even our captain, who has flown for over 30 years says that he hasn't been on a flight as bumpy as ours in years.

Fly safe everyone.

Cheers!

AirplaneBoy

Maybe this explains the fuel stop, weather, people something the airline has no control over?
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
RDUDDJI
Posts: 1717
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:42 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:36 am

It's not just B6...

Fuel stops are not that uncommon. UAX (YV) used to have to fuel stop their CR7s in MCI when they flew RDU DEN about 1-2 times a week. (UA decided to susequently ax that route anyway)

EGL has to fuel stop their E135-E145s in JAN quite often on the way from RDU to AUS.

While these aren't "mainline" flights, they're sold under mainline brands...
Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
 
AADC10
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 2:11 am

Quoting Flyboy7974 (Thread starter):
all day the flights make it nonstop, then while it's cooler out, the night flight stops in slc for fuel

Just wait until we get a Santa Ana wind and every BUR-JFK flight for the day will need a fuel stop. Under those conditions, they could probably not even make it to SLC. They would probably have to stop at ONT or LAS.

I wonder if this is what B6 was expecting or if it is worse. Obviously B6 knew that BUR was going to be an operational problem, but I guess they wanted to take the opportunity of Aloha's departure to get into BUR since they have maxed out LGB. The final frontier in Los Angeles is now ONT.
 
richierich
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 2:18 am

JetBlue makes one fuel stop out of BUR and now all of a sudden there are "operational issues"?! Are you kidding me?

I know that the fuel situation leaving LGB and OAK (and now BUR) in the winter can be tough for the A320 but I didn't think the occasional tech stop was a big deal. If 99% of their LGB, OAK and BUR flights are non-stop, that is good enough for me.

BTW- my father flew JetBlue a lot into and out of OAK a couple of years ago. Not once did he have to make a tech stop for fuel on any eastbound flight.
None shall pass!!!!
 
greenguy01
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:21 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 2:34 am

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 6):
The same technical stops occur out of Long Beach and westbound out of BOS to the west coast.

The fuel stops out of LGB last summer were caused by the main runway being closed for runway construction on Saturdays. JetBlue knew about this ahead of time and built the fuel stop into the schedule and notified their customers when they bought tickets on those flights.
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you to their level and beat you with experience.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 3:38 am

JetBlue will have its challenges with the BUR-JFK route, and while an occassional fuel stop for operational reasons is not a big deal, it will become a very big deal if it happens regularly......I am sure that we will hear more on this issue after a few months time. The A320 has some limitations on trans-con routes, but at BUR the bigger issue is the runways and the winds encountered at that airport.

Aside from pax issues (who tend to find unschedule stops an inconvenience and, for some reason, upsetting), unscheduled stops cost an airline money, upsets connections and causes all kinds of scheduling and operational problems.....JetBlue keeps its aircraft on tight schedules and the delays that result from unplanned stops will cost JetBlue money.

The BUR-JFK flights are already limited to 135 passengers - leaving 20 seats empty on every flight already limits profits, and if unscheduled fuel stops become an constant issue, JetBlue will take a close look at the numbers and profit potential of the BUR-JFK route.
 
Cactus739
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:41 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:10 am

Quoting Jblake1 (Reply 9):
would be pissed if I was on a "non-stop" flight and had to stop for fuel

Considering that things can change once a plane is airbone... given the option of spending an hour in Salt Lake City or not getting to my destination, I'll take the tour of Salt Lake please.

There was quite a lengthy thread on this last week. Are we going to have a thread on this everytime one stops for fuel? We could combine it with the Peter Max threads... "Where is Peter Max, and Where did jetBlue stop for gas?"  Smile
You can't fix stupid.... - Ron White
 
richierich
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:15 am

Quoting Cactus739 (Reply 20):
There was quite a lengthy thread on this last week. Are we going to have a thread on this everytime one stops for fuel?

I do find it a bit silly that every unexpected fuel stop JetBlue makes is news on airliners. I do agree that there should be no fuel stops in a perfect world but that is not the case. I really don't think the fuel stops are a frequent or common event.

BTW, my source at JetBlue has informed me that passengers who are on flights that are delayed for tech/fuel reasons are usually compensated a nominal amount. I guess it is better than nothing.

Again, I ask, why is this news? Obviously some people in here have nothing better to discuss.
None shall pass!!!!
 
ScottB
Posts: 5501
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:35 am

Quoting Richierich (Reply 21):
Again, I ask, why is this news? Obviously some people in here have nothing better to discuss.

It is news because many people figured that jetBlue would be making tech stops on the BUR-JFK flights on a fairly regular basis, even with seats blocked on the aircraft. In the first ten days of the route (29 flights, since the 7 AM departure started 5/25), there have been at least two eastbound tech stops -- and this is without high summer temperatures or Santa Ana winds. By my rough calculations, that says that 7% of their eastbound departures have made a pit stop on the way to JFK -- and that's no tiny amount. But even with those added costs, I don't doubt that the yields on the flights will make up for it.

Besides, there is a thread for every random ferry/charter/whatever flight someone manages to find on a flight tracking website. Are you surprised?

Go have another glass of blue Kool-Aid and take a nice nap.
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:56 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
The BUR-JFK flights are already limited to 135 passengers - leaving 20 seats empty on every flight already limits profits, and if unscheduled fuel stops become an constant issue, JetBlue will take a close look at the numbers and profit potential of the BUR-JFK route.

If it is limited to 135 passengers, it really needs an A319.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
richierich
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 5:14 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 22):
Besides, there is a thread for every random ferry/charter/whatever flight someone manages to find on a flight tracking website. Are you surprised?

Go have another glass of blue Kool-Aid and take a nice nap.

Nice Scott. However, what annoys the crap out of me is that the same people who piss and moan about JetBlue making an occasional tech stop are the same ones who downplay the fact that JetBlue has an excellent service record as far as lost bags, cancelled flights, customer complaints.... should I go on?

I am well aware that the A320 out of BUR to the east coast is a struggle. Frankly, I was surprised they selected Burbank as one of their new cities but if they feel it will work, then good I say. The 135 pax number is about 20 fewer than capacity on their A320s but if they run high load factors (which I suspect they will), they should be alright.

I hope that the BUR tech stops are infrequent but I just find it funny that something so trivial as one stop makes the headlines on airliners. People like ScottB need to wake up and get real.
None shall pass!!!!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 9:03 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 2):
I know B6 doesn't have any 319's, but would that be a better choice for BUR-JFK?

Actually, the capacity would be outstripped, and given B6's no overbooking policy, it would not be good. The 738 would have been better

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 6):
The same technical stops occur out of Long Beach

No they don't. That was only on Saturdays during reconstruction of the long runway. They were taking off from 6000 foot runways then, almost 900 feet shorter than BUR

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 6):
westbound out of BOS to the west coast.

Yes, that has been a problem and the ACT has not solved that problem.

Quoting LACA773 (Reply 10):
Does anyone know if B6 has ever considered getting 319s to deal with this specific purpose as well as for thinner, transcon routes?

B6 has been offered the entire A32S line and has said that the costs on the A319/A318 don't interest them and that the A321-200's range simply is not enough. They have stated a desire for and A320.5, which would be just about exactly what a 738 is

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 16):
Just wait until we get a Santa Ana wind and every BUR-JFK flight for the day will need a fuel stop. Under those conditions, they could probably not even make it to SLC.


Actually, WN has to fuel stop 733s and 73Gs (which both have shorter take off runs than the A320) on BUR-OAK/SJC/SMF flights at either ONT or LAX when they have to swap runways

Quoting Richierich (Reply 17):
JetBlue makes one fuel stop out of BUR and now all of a sudden there are "operational issues"?!

It has been more than 1. The first one, on the first day of operation, stopped in BUF

Quoting Brons2 (Reply 23):
If it is limited to 135 passengers, it really needs an A319.

It is not limited on JFK-BUR.

[Edited 2005-06-04 02:05:23]
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 12:45 pm

It has been more than 1. The first one, on the first day of operation, stopped in BUF

You misunderstood what I was trying to say in that topic where I gave the information about a fuel stop in BUF. I was saying JetBlue's first FUEL STOP from Burbank, not their first flight. So, in actuality, they've only had 2 fuel stops so far...and the weather here in the tri-state area hasn't been all that pretty with isolated thunderstorms coming and going.

JetBluefan1
 
N200WN
Posts: 695
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:09 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 12:57 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 22):
In the first ten days of the route (29 flights, since the 7 AM departure started 5/25), there have been at least two eastbound tech stops

I thought that it was determined in last weeks thread on this subject that the first fuel stop at BUF was a result of WX/ATC issues at JFK. And this came from someone who works B6 at JFK Ops.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Santa Ana winds. It will present operational problems for all when they occur but that is what...a couple of days once or twice a year?
 
jetblueatjfk
Posts: 1556
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:42 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:01 pm

Ok people it is the 2nd out of like 30 flights. That is pretty good b/c people were saying it would never really make it and have to stop alot. I don't think BUR will be that much of a problem. Maybe like once every 2 weeks maybe 2 times in like 2 weeks occasionally. So that isn't that bad.

 airplane jetBlueAtJFK airplane 
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:24 pm

Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 26):
I was saying JetBlue's first FUEL STOP from Burbank, not their first flight.

My point was that it wasn't their first fuel stop
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
flyboy7974
Posts: 1210
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:35 pm

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 6:49 pm

what confused me that you all missed about this, both daytime flights made it nonstop, why the 9pm when the temp is cooler, was it the winds at 9pm
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 8:18 pm

>>>what confused me that you all missed about this, both daytime flights made it nonstop, why the 9pm when the temp is cooler, was it the winds at 9pm

The actual max takeoff weight available at BUR (or any other airport for that matter) is only one half of the equation--the other is the fuel requirement for the particular flight. Does the flight need a destination alternate and fuel to reach it? Is there a line of thunderstorms perpendicular to the most optimum route of flight that will require a re-route that consumes more fuel? Is storm-related turbulence such that optimum altitudes have been rendered unusable forcing the flight lower where fuel consumption is higher? Are weather-related ATC delays (enroute or terminal environments) requiring extra fuel?

To the extent that some (or all) of the four above (or other) fuel-consuming items are present, or anticipated to be present, the chances of a diversion increase.

I agree with a previous poster who said something to the effect that 2 diversions do not indicate a "trend." The need to fuel-stop does not indicate a lack of professionalism at JBLU or anywhere else. Fuel-stops also sometimes come into play when airport-related or aircraft MEL/CDL-related restrictions exist. (With MSY's long 10-28 closed, some of SWA's long-hauls have been fuel-stopping if the loads are high, and a -700 hasn't been available for use). Some MEL-related restrictions might entail a weight reduction (anti-skid inop) and others might require additional fuel (a fuel boost pump inop) that detracts from optimum payload capability.

As usual, there are alot of variables. Most of the time, they allow a normal, non-stop flight. Sometimes they don't.

[Edited 2005-06-04 13:31:54]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 9:00 pm

>>>Only fuel stop ever for me was an AA777 out of NRT that had to be diverted because texas was closed, and we landed in DEN. We needed more fuel to get back to DFW, but that's not just a minor reroute. That was a whole state closed due to storms and 2.5 extra hours in the air.

The entire State of Texas was closed? Did we seal the borders?  

(Weather aside, at least some of the other airports within Texas would have been available, i.e. ELP, MAF, LBB, AMA, ABI, AUS, SAT, HRL, CRP, IAH, but coming in NRT-DFW, AMA would have been the closest to the intended route. AMA has a nice long runway, but they're probably not set-up to handle international widebodies as far as gates and ground handling, hence DEN was a better choice operationally, not because "Texas was closed"....)  Wink

[Edited 2005-06-04 14:05:37]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:35 pm

N1120A,

You said: It has been more than 1. The first one, on the first day of operation, stopped in BUF

That is untrue. The inaugural day was just fine -- everything non-stop. The first fuel stop, which was last Friday, stopped in BUF. Then they had another one yesterday. That's a total of 2 fuel-stops since they started operations there.

JetBluefan1
 
LY4XELD
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 5:14 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:21 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
Only fuel stop ever for me was an AA777 out of NRT that had to be diverted because texas was closed

I agree with OPNLguy...when did Texas close?  Wink

Quoting Richierich (Reply 24):
However, what annoys the crap out of me is that the same people who piss and moan about JetBlue making an occasional tech stop are the same ones who downplay the fact that JetBlue has an excellent service record as far as lost bags, cancelled flights, customer complaints.... should I go on?

And any time someone sneezes at the majors, it also seems to be a thread starter for a nice complaint session about how bad service is, how much money they are losing, etc. while completely neglecting any positive aspect of that airline. Although the darling airline of the US, B6 shouldn't be immune.
That's why we're here.
 
SunValley
Posts: 674
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:51 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:34 am

Quoting Richierich (Reply 24):
the fact that JetBlue has an excellent service record as far as lost bags, cancelled flights, customer complaints.... should I go on?

The "lilly white" at B6 is fast becoming a little beige. A Weather Warning prior to siezing the captive group would noramlly be in order, however the MO at B6 is get them on the plane, then make the announcement. And the DOO they DOO at B6, is don't cancel the flight, even if it is 14 hours delayed, keep that flight number active.
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:40 am

Quoting SunValley (Reply 35):
The "lilly white" at B6 is fast becoming a little beige.

And yet they are still turning a profit.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
SunValley
Posts: 674
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:51 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:43 am

Luv, So when they start hemoraging the cash will they still be your hero?
Unions will be arriving on their door step soon....
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:44 am

Quoting SunValley (Reply 37):
Luv, So when they start hemoraging the cash will they still be your hero?
Unions will be arriving on their door step soon....

Yeah those unions really sunk WN did they not
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
PassBureauMgr
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:34 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:53 am

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 36):
And yet they are still turning a profit.

But dwindling!
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:56 am

Quoting PassBureauMgr (Reply 39):
But dwindling!

Money is money and I am sure AA, CO, DL, NW, UA and US would gladly take the dwindling profit.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
PassBureauMgr
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:34 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:00 am

Give luvvy a blue ribbon. What do you have an MBA in jetBlue?
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:03 am

Sarcasm when proven wrong, how mature!
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:17 am

>>>A Weather Warning prior to siezing the captive group would noramlly be in order, however the MO at B6 is get them on the plane, then make the announcement.

IF the National Weather Service gave warnings that had such great accuracy for the 3-4 hour time frame for when the aircraft was later "down the road" and actually in the area of potential weather, then I'd say that you have a point. NWS doesn't, and you don't...  

Any resemblance between forecast thunderstorms and what actually develops (and exactly where they develop) is purely coincidental....

So, with all that in mind, do you assume that you'll most likely get through the majority of the time (and load up those passengers and keep them "captive", or do you not board the flight and delay the departure because thunderstorms might actually be a problem a few hours down the road?

As they used to say on the NFL commercials, "You make the call..."  

[Edited 2005-06-04 21:19:50]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5015
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:34 am

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 43):
As they used to say on the NFL commercials, "You make the call..."

Or in our case, "We make the call."
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:12 am

>>>Or in our case, "We make the call."

Glad I'm not doing so tonight--you get a load of that line in the midwest? Tops to FL700 according to an email I got...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
SHUPirate1
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:43 am

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 43):
So, with all that in mind, do you assume that you'll most likely get through the majority of the time (and load up those passengers and keep them "captive", or do you not board the flight and delay the departure because thunderstorms might actually be a problem a few hours down the road?

All airlines do that. The primary reason this is done, however, is because a flight isn't assigned an ATC slot (or wheels-up time) until they actually push back from the gate, and as a result, they will often push back on-time, as if everything is OK, and THEN inform you that your destination airport is groundstopped for the next hour and a half!
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
commavia
Posts: 10071
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:46 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
The BUR-JFK flights are already limited to 135 passengers - leaving 20 seats empty on every flight already limits profits, and if unscheduled fuel stops become an constant issue, JetBlue will take a close look at the numbers and profit potential of the BUR-JFK route.

Why would B6 ever start a route where it knew -- going into it -- that it would always be handicapped by at least 13% capacity? They seemed to be doing so well at LGB and ONT, why would they choose to fly JFK-BUR if they knew they would be at a disadvantage with A320 range issues from the start?
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:52 am

>>>they will often push back on-time, as if everything is OK, and THEN inform you that your destination airport is groundstopped for the next hour and a half!

We discuss the possibility of ground stops/ground delay programs during ATCSCC telcons (every couple of hours), but it's not unusual for them to issue one without any advance warning if some facility starts being unable to take traffic. It that happens once a flight has pushed the gate, that's unfortunate, but that's the way the ball bounces. Ditto when the stop is for X-minutes and then they extend it for another 30 or 60 minutes.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
FA4B6
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:00 am

RE: B6 296 BUR-JFK Fuel Stop

Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:14 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 47):
Why would B6 ever start a route where it knew -- going into it -- that it would always be handicapped by at least 13% capacity? They seemed to be doing so well at LGB and ONT, why would they choose to fly JFK-BUR if they knew they would be at a disadvantage with A320 range issues from the start?

It's strategy. It allows B6 to "surround" LAX without having to fly directly into LAX, BUR has a huge convenience factor and therefore B6 can a fare premium on BUR-JFK to make up for the seats it can't fill because of the runway length, it's a small and easy LA area airport, there is no other airline that flies from BUR-NYC, etc etc.
"Leap! And the net will appear."

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos