User avatar
RayChuang
Topic Author
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:07 am

I'm sure everyone has read about the issues of JetBlue (B6) having troubles flying the A320 non-stop between US West Coast destinations and its main hub at JFK.

I wonder this though: has B6 ever approached Airbus with the idea of building a higher-MTOW A320 that has extra fuel capacity (which sacrifices some cargo space) and more powerful IAE V2500 engine derivatives so B6 can fly routes like SMF-JFK and BUR-JFK non-stop year-round? And B6 could buy enough planes (maybe 50-60 examples) so the development and certification costs of this modified A320 could be justified.
 
Web
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:21 am

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since B6 has the passenger capacity pretty much maxed out, they are loading as much fuel on the plane as they can, but MTOW prevents a full load of fuel. Thus, if A were to create a higher MTOW A320, they would have to tweak the wing as well, and while they're doing that, they might as well do it to the rest of the A320 series, and that takes time, which they might see as better spent working on the A350. So, if B6 were to approach A with the idea, it would probably be shelved for a while and not have an immediate impact like B6 would prefer.
 
jetblueatjfk
Posts: 1556
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:42 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:21 am

It is a good idea and if Airbus does decide to make it, it might take maybe like 2-3 years so it is good that they can ge it faster but it will cost more and they will have to wait a while with the regular planes and continue with occasional fuel stops.

They did buy some planes that have the central fuel tank but it took up to much space and something else happened so they stopped buying them, maybe they should use those planes with the tank to do the routes.

 airplane jetBlueAtJFK airplane 
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:24 am

Or use the A319's. 20 less pax, but no stops.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
gilesdavies
Posts: 2274
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:51 pm

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:55 am

I find it difficult to understand why Jet Blue are effected by the Maximum take off weight on the A320 or the aircrafts not able to carry enough fuel to operate coast to coast.

I am looking at this from a European perspective and please dont jump down my throat if I have missed out any factors that effect flying in the US...

But airlines like First Choice and Thomas Cook operate their A320's from the UK to destinations like Egypt and Israel which is 5.5hrs flight length and with 189 passengers (28inch Seat Pitch) and all their luggage for a one/two week holiday/vacation with very little difficulty.

These flights will also be effected by the hot and dry conditions and also operating from regional airports in the UK with relatively short runways runways of 7000ft. (eg. LTN)
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:57 am

Quoting Web (Reply 1):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since B6 has the passenger capacity pretty much maxed out, they are loading as much fuel on the plane as they can, but MTOW prevents a full load of fuel. Thus, if A were to create a higher MTOW A320, they would have to tweak the wing as well, and while they're doing that, they might as well do it to the rest of the A320 series, and that takes time, which they might see as better spent working on the A350. So, if B6 were to approach A with the idea, it would probably be shelved for a while and not have an immediate impact like B6 would prefer.

B6 does not have the pax capacity of the A320 maxed out, not close.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
kdeg00
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:41 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:58 am

Does B6 have range issues on all its west to east tanscons, or is it mainly the Burbank flight under some takeoff conditions? There was a thread a couple of weeks ago talking about how Burbanks pattern had to deal with quickly gaining elevation because of the surrounding mountains ande therefore they had to take off at less than full load. What I can't remember is whether the thread was talking about a ruduced fuel load, a reduced passenger load, less cargo, or all three.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 1944
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:17 am

Doesn't US legacy carriers (UA etc) fly 150-seat A320s on transcons everyday without problems? Six additional seats surely cannot mean that much more trouble? Or is it specifically due to the short runway at BUR why jetBlue has difficulties?

Like another poster said, MYT also fly 177-seat A320s from Scandinavia to the Canary Islands, which is 4,200 kms, flying over windy stretches along the European and African continental coastlines...
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
modesto2
Posts: 2671
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2000 3:44 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:27 am

In the last quarter of 2004, JetBlue started taking delivery of A320's with the ACT (additional center tank). This additional fuel tank was supposed to address the range issues. However, the weight of the extra fuel was detrimental enough to offset the intended extra range. Can't say they haven't tried!
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:31 am

Maybe Jetblue could go to FAA and try an get an exemption for take off weight? Like the wheel chair requirement and the pilot rest requirements?

What's a little less extra gas?
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:52 am

I think it's important to note here that there are probably two weight-related issues here.

The first issue is max structural takeoff weight. If this is the limiting factor on westbound long-hauls, the weight may be able to be increased without physical changes to the aircraft. For example, the original 737-300 had a max takeoff of 130,000 but an airline could obtain ($$$) additional certification for higher weights, and the max is then 139,000. Assuming Airbus does it the same way, this could be an option.

The other issue is performance-limited weights, i.e. BUR on a hot day, or anytime they're on runway 33. Irrespective of what the max structural weights are, performance-limited weights restrict them further, and the only solution is a more powerful engine rating. This could entail a software change and tweaking of the engine (both at an upgrade cost), and it might not totally solve the problem.

As someone else mentioned, fuel tank capacity may also be an issue. An aircraft can have great takeoff/landing performance, but too small a fuel tank for the intended mission negates all that...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
flightopsguy
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:51 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:12 am

I recall that the Allowable takeoff gross weight at BUR (a Runway limit usually) is considerably less than the Structural limit. OPNLguy is correct to point out that often higher structural weights (both takeoff and landing) are available for purchase from the manufacturer, with no physical change to the aircraft.

Occasionally a carrier will actually pay to reduce the structural weights. For example, when flying shorter segments, and always being burnout limited, so the allowable takeoff weight never approaches the structural limit. Airport fees are often calculated based on the max structural weights of the aircraft.

CAN Playbook routes from west to east challenge many aircraft types especially when they are unable to depart at max weight. BUR, SNA and SAN can all be headaches. I would bet (after dispatching airbii for quite a few years) that JBU never fills the tanks on their transcons....it's not a max fuel issue, it's a weight issue.
A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:14 am

Quoting Flightopsguy (Reply 11):
I would bet (after dispatching airbii for quite a few years) that JBU never fills the tanks on their transcons....it's not a max fuel issue, it's a weight issue.

Having never dispatched one myself, I'd always wondered...

Thanks for the info...  Wink
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: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:12 am

doesnt B6's IFE add a lot of extra weight?
"Leap! And the net will appear."
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Topic Author
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:38 pm

Now you know why I suggested a more powerful V2500 engine for the higher-MTOW A320's.  Smile Maybe JetBlue could use the V2500's used on the A321 onto the higher-MTOW A320's so they could take advantage of thethe additional center tank's extra fuel capacity?
 
FA4B6
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:00 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:50 pm

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 14):
so they could take advantage of thethe additional center tank's extra fuel capacity?

the center tanks are being removed ..
"Leap! And the net will appear."
 
User avatar
TS-IOR
Posts: 3505
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 9:44 pm

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:03 pm

There is already a HGW version for the A32X family. As for the A320, the highest MTOW is 77,000Kg for a range of 3065nm. The A319 could go 632nm farther with a lighter Mtow.
Next flight TUN-YUL Tunisair A330-243.
 
flybyguy
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:52 pm

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:46 am

Quoting FA4B6 (Reply 13):
doesn't B6's IFE add a lot of extra weight?

Yes, the total system weighs approximately 2,000 lbs so having a full pax load AND that heavy IFE makes the A320 very iffy on transcons even with the extra tanks.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 7):
Doesn't US legacy carriers (UA etc) fly 150-seat A320s on transcons everyday without problems? Six additional seats surely cannot mean that much more trouble?

As stated before, personalized IFE on UA planes are non-existent so UA can fly their A320s transcon at full pax loads and still be 2,000 lbs lighter than B6's jets.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:55 am

Quoting RayChuang (Thread starter):
I'm sure everyone has read about the issues of JetBlue (B6) having troubles flying the A320 non-stop between US West Coast destinations and its main hub at JFK.

Actually, most of the issues going westbound have been out of BOS.

Quoting Web (Reply 1):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since B6 has the passenger capacity pretty much maxed out, they are loading as much fuel on the plane as they can

They are 23 seats under the certified maximum

Quoting Mariner (Reply 3):
Or use the A319's. 20 less pax, but no stops.

B6 does not want A319s, and has repeated this constantly.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
jblake1
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 10:25 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:39 am

I don't mean to throw gas on a fire but, would they have this issue if they were flying 737's instead of A320's? Just curios. Thanks.

jblake1
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:46 am

Quoting Jblake1 (Reply 19):
I don't mean to throw gas on a fire but, would they have this issue if they were flying 737's instead of A320's? Just curios. Thanks.

No, it would not be as much of an issue, but B6 was offered a much better deal by Airbus, as Boeing was still in its "we tell you what to do" phase of stupidity that also cost them the F9 order
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:05 am

Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 17):
Quoting FA4B6 (Reply 13):
doesn't B6's IFE add a lot of extra weight?

Yes, the total system weighs approximately 2,000 lbs so having a full pax load AND that heavy IFE makes the A320 very iffy on transcons even with the extra tanks.

I find it hard to understand how a lousy 2,000 lbs in an aircraft that size has that much of an effect.

If this is the case, why dont they go to an A-321 on transcons? Or a 757 to Burbank if hot is an issue?
One Nation Under God
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:11 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 21):
If this is the case, why dont they go to an A-321 on transcons?

Because that has even less range

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 21):
Or a 757 to Burbank if hot is an issue?

You are kidding, right? Right???? Take away the fact that the plane is not made anymore and that no one is selling, the commonality issues alone would kill them
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
bigb
Posts: 731
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:57 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 21):
If this is the case, why dont they go to an A-321 on transcons?

LOL, that would not only be asking, but begging for failure.
ETSN Baber, USN
 
westindian425
Posts: 729
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 7:46 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:01 am

Q. Isn't there an indian airline (I think -- no time to do research) that has A320's with double bogey main gears? Wasn't that for increase in weight?

Neil
God did not create aircraft pilots to be on the ground
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:16 am

Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 9):
Maybe Jetblue could go to FAA and try an get an exemption for take off weight? Like the wheel chair requirement and the pilot rest requirements?

What's a little less extra gas?

The thread was about the range of B6's 320's. Not to share personal bias toward the airline. It's too bad your so unhappy.  Sad
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:42 am

Quoting WestIndian425 (Reply 24):
Q. Isn't there an indian airline (I think -- no time to do research) that has A320's with double bogey main gears? Wasn't that for increase in weight?

Neil

no, it was for fragile secondary runways. pressure is distributed across more wheels with the double bogey mains. the newer ones they got have single bogies anyways.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
AirTranTUS
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:12 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:43 am

Would the 738 HGW w/ blended winglets have been a better choice? It has a MTOW of 174,200lb compared to a max MTOW of 169,755lb for the A320. (This data is from the Aircraft Data & History section.) The 320 is wider but passengers probably care more about arriving on time than comfort. The 738 can probably be outfitted w/ IFE like B6's if an airline wanted it.
I love ASO!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:15 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 7):
Doesn't US legacy carriers (UA etc) fly 150-seat A320s on transcons everyday without problems? Six additional seats surely cannot mean that much more trouble? Or is it specifically due to the short runway at BUR why jetBlue has difficulties?

Good question. I flew yesterday on a UA A320 from Oakland to Dulles, without any fuel stops.....
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
flightopsguy
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:51 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:20 am

A departure from OAK would go out at near or at structural takeoff weight. Still possible the flight could be burnout limited (structural landing weight plus burnout equals allowable takeoff weight) since the 320 is so darn fuel efficient.

BUR,SAN,and SNA all have runway limits due to short runways,and/or close in obstacles.

On a pure VFR day with no alternate fuel, and going on the fastest route JBU should be able to make it nonstop from BUR to JFK, but maybe without a full load.

JBU would lose a significant cost advantage to add another fleet type.

Lots of good info on aircraft weight theory on one of the NASA websites. I used to teach weight and balance...it's a complicated subject if you haven't been exposed to the way airliners are certificated.

ML Redtail
A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:24 am

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 27):
(This data is from the Aircraft Data & History section.)

Always a mistake, but for once it is correct.

N
 
Jeff G
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 9:56 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:19 pm

The last 10 planes or so that JB has taken delivery of, the ones that were intended to use the ACT, have a higher MTOW than the earlier deliveries. The MTGW is bumped up by about 2200 lbs.

It is not unusual in the winter to completely fill the fuel tanks. Sometimes we just gross out with full fuel and can't fill all the seats (typically with standby passengers or jumpseaters). The increased MTOW does help here.
 
User avatar
United_fan
Posts: 6374
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 11:11 am

RE: Higher Mtow A320 For JetBlue?

Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:44 am

On a side-note,jetblue 290 just came into ROC on a BUR-JFK diversion.(6-26)
Champagne For My Real Friends,and Real Pain For My Sham Friends