LRGT
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:29 pm

JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:06 am

With the headaches of payload restrictions on some trans-cons, the inability to operate routes such as BOS-SAN, no range for WC-HNL or BOS-LGW, why is jetBlue not also flying the A319??? They had to take 2 rows of seats out of their A320's so they could make it on some of these routes, almost bringing them to the capacity of the A319 anyway!

I am honestly surprised that they went for the A320 in the first place, since it is inferior in range to both the A319 and A321. Maybe they did not realize how many trans-cons they were going to get into?

My $0.02...they made a critical mistake...their fleet should be E190, A319, and A321 (NO A320)...but what does my opinion matter?
Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
 
B742
Posts: 3562
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:48 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:10 am

I think they should introduce the A319, but no take out the A320!

An A319 would have the additional range and would act as the middle man between the A320 and E190!

Rob!  wave 
 
tinpusher007
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:03 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:11 am

Im quite sure that that the A321 is inferior in range to the A320.
"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:11 am

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
My $0.02...they made a critical mistake...their fleet should be E190, A319, and A321 (NO A320)...but what does my opinion matter?

Yeah all the profits they have made so far would say they have made the right decision right from day one.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
positiverate
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 10:35 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:12 am

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
With the headaches of payload restrictions on some trans-cons, the inability to operate routes such as BOS-SAN, no range for WC-HNL or BOS-LGW, why is jetBlue not also flying the A319???

HNL? LGW? Ummm....ok.
 
B6FA4ever
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 6:49 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:14 am

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
They had to take 2 rows of seats out of their A320's so they could make it on some of these routes, almost bringing them to the capacity of the A319 anyway!

ok, we only took out one row of seats and that was because passengers were complaining about the seat pitch and that (at the time) row 27 did not recline. so one row of seats were taken out and rows 13-26 extended back. also, its just winter time when there are problems w/ the trans-cons due to the strong head winds.

~B6FA4ever
 
lhrmaccoll
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:12 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:15 am

But the 320 offers just that little bit more capactiy on high density routes, while killing the operating costs of a 321 or 757
Alex
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:24 am

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
With the headaches of payload restrictions on some trans-cons, the inability to operate routes such as BOS-SAN, no range for WC-HNL or BOS-LGW, why is jetBlue not also flying the A319???

What in the world makes you think the A319 can operate BOS-LGW/STN with any kind of respectable load, because it can't.

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
They had to take 2 rows of seats out of their A320's so they could make it on some of these routes, almost bringing them to the capacity of the A319 anyway

What do you think they would do with the A319? 29" pitch and fill it out to 149? Look at scale first

Quoting Lhrmaccoll (Reply 6):
But the 320 offers just that little bit more capactiy on high density routes, while killing the operating costs of a 321 or 757

Actually, the A321 and the 757 both kill the A320 when it comes to CASM
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
LRGT
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:29 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:44 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
What in the world makes you think the A319 can operate BOS-LGW/STN with any kind of respectable load, because it can't.

Ummmmm.....yes....a full NON-ER A319 has nearly the same range as a full 757!

BOS-LGW: 5265km
A319: 6845km (source: this site)
A319ER: EVEN MORE RANGE!

Even with the winds, it is WELL within range since A319 range with max payload is 1600km farther than BOS-LGW!!! Also (unlike the A320), the aux fuel tanks do work in the A319, which can farther increase its range
Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
 
letsgetwet
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:53 am

I don't think you'll see Jet Blue in London or Hawaii any time soon (if ever) !
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:53 am

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 8):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
What in the world makes you think the A319 can operate BOS-LGW/STN with any kind of respectable load, because it can't.

Ummmmm.....yes....a full NON-ER A319 has nearly the same range as a full 757!

BOS-LGW: 5265km
A319: 6845km (source: this site)

Bingo Lrgt !

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
WC-HNL

ONT-HNL, for example, is only 4189 km, whhich is well within the range of B6´s A320s.

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=o...GE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=&ETOPS=180
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24612
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:03 am

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
the inability to operate routes such as BOS-SAN, no range for WC-HNL

What are you talking about?

WC-HNL and BOS-SAN are both shorter than BOS-OAK, jetBlue's longest route. Oakland-Honolulu is nearly 200 miles shorter than BOS-OAK.
a.
 
User avatar
Btriple7
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:58 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:04 am

David Neeleman has already expressed that he does not want to go international. It gets way to complicated. Maybe if OpenSkies come through, but until then I think LGW is out of the question.
Just...fly.
 
LRGT
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:29 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:29 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 10):
Bingo Lrgt !

Thanks...I don't think people realize that the base A319 is superior to their beloved 737NG.  Wink

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 11):
What are you talking about?

WC-HNL and BOS-SAN are both shorter than BOS-OAK, jetBlue's longest route. Oakland-Honolulu is nearly 200 miles shorter than BOS-OAK.

That is what I used to think, but they barely make BOS-OAK and they need a little bit for fuel for ETOPS to OAK/LGB-HNL. While BOS-SAN is shorter than BOS-OAK, it cannot be done because of other reasons; I believe I was told terrain (source: jetBlue pilot).
Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
 
mikkel777
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 1:15 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:40 am

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 13):
I don't think people realize that the base A319 is superior to their beloved 737NG.

On price and cabin width, not much else.
 
hz747300
Posts: 1911
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:00 am

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
but what does my opinion matter?

It doesn't. What does HNL or LGW have to do with anything jetBlue offers or plans to offer. And I am quite certain that the A321 is a weaker performer versus the A320.
Keep on truckin'...
 
JetMaster
Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:10 am

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 13):
Thanks...I don't think people realize that the base A319 is superior to their beloved 737NG.

"Base A319" superior to the "B737NG"? What kind of comparison is that? You compare one single model ("base"?) out of a family to a whole family...and no, even if you compare A319 and B73G (-700) one cannot simply determine which one is better. Depends on the specific needs of a specific airline, meaning there are dozens of aspects to be considered when an aircraft type has to be chosen.

Quoting Mikkel777 (Reply 14):
On price and cabin width, not much else.

Very general, almost somehow ignorant statement, not much better than the original poster's. As I said earlier, every single airline has specific needs. Some airlines focus on commonality, others prefer specific engines (e.g. IAE), others require high altitude takeoff performance. And who tells you A319s are always cheaper than B73Gs?


Regards,
JM

[Edited 2005-10-31 23:15:23]
The Journey is my Destination
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:10 am

While the A319 may offer certain advantages over the A320 on a few of JetBlues longer routes, JetBlue is probably not intereted in adding a third type to its fleet.....I do realize that the A319 has an awful lot in common with the A320, but having another type will complicate operations and is not worth the trouble, it easier using the A320 and taking some penalities on the longer routes when conditions are not favorable.

JetBlue at one time was trying to convince Airbus to build the A320.5.....an A32X sized inbetween the A320 and A321 but nothing serious ever came of that. I mention it because I dont think that JetBlue is interested in adding a smaller member of the A32X family to their fleet: they have settled on the E190 for lower capacity operations (over the A318) and the A320 for higher capacity operations, and thats the fleet that JetBlue will probably stay with into the foreseeable future.

[Edited 2005-10-31 23:25:46]
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:12 am

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 8):
(source: this site)

That will almost always get you in trouble.

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 8):
Also (unlike the A320), the aux fuel tanks do work in the A319, which can farther increase its range

The Aux fuel tanks are available on the 319LR... the regular A319 doesn't even offer them as an option.


This is a pointless conversation. The A320 is the perfect plane for jetBlue. It features the right mix of payload and capability.

N
 
N908AW
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:05 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:13 am

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 16):
Very general, almost somehow ignorant statement

Ah, but it was a ton less ignorant than the original statement, wasn't it?  sarcastic 

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 16):
And who tells you A319s are always cheaper than B73Gs?

Indy.
'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24612
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:17 am

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 13):
While BOS-SAN is shorter than BOS-OAK, it cannot be done because of other reasons; I believe I was told terrain (source: jetBlue pilot).

There are runway issues at SAN, but BOS-SAN can be done by jetBlue. The SAN-BOS leg may face weight restrictions, but that doesn't stop them from doing BUR-JFK, and it won't stop them from doing SAN-BOS.
a.
 
JetMaster
Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:17 am

Quoting N908AW (Reply 19):
Ah, but it was a ton less ignorant than the original statement, wasn't it?

Not really a ton, but less, yes.  Wink

Quoting N908AW (Reply 19):
Indy.

Indy says the A319 is always cheaper? Really?  eyebrow 


Regards,
JM
The Journey is my Destination
 
jmc1975
Posts: 2897
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 10:57 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:18 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 17):
JetBlue at one time was trying to convince JetBlue to build the A320.5

No wonder it never got built!  Wink
.......
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:25 am

Duh - you got me.......but I am sure you know what I meant.
 
mikkel777
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 1:15 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:25 am

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 16):
Very general, almost somehow ignorant statement, not much better than the original poster's.

Yes, ignorant, but true.
This has been discussed over and over. Facts: NG flies farther, faster and with less fuelburn than the bus. The engine option on the bus is a good thing, and also the cockpit-commonality with 330/340. This is, however, overrated. Airbus can load containers, but NG can easier be loaded on remote stations without much equipment. On hot'n high operations, the NG has the upper hand.

Both are good planes, safe and effective. Anyway, it boils down to the individual customers needs and recources. In most cases, the NG is the most economic in the long term perspective, but the bus is cheaper to buy.

[Edited 2005-10-31 23:29:35]
 
LRGT
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:29 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:36 am

Quoting JetMaster (Reply 16):
"Base A319" superior to the "B737NG"? What kind of comparison is that? You compare one single model ("base"?) out of a family to a whole family...and no, even if you compare A319 and B73G (-700) one cannot simply determine which one is better. Depends on the specific needs of a specific airline, meaning there are dozens of aspects to be considered when an aircraft type has to be chosen.

The statement was made in the context of RANGE. I didn't think I needed to specify that, but I should have since it was obviously mis-interpreted.

Quoting Mikkel777 (Reply 24):
Facts: NG flies farther,

Versus the A320, yes....versus the A319, NO!
Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
 
mikkel777
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 1:15 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:37 am

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 25):
Versus the A320, yes....versus the A319, NO!

Try comparing the 70t MTOW versions for both aircraft
 
flick70
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 5:19 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:43 pm

Quoting Btriple7 (Reply 12):
David Neeleman has already expressed that he does not want to go international. It gets way to complicated. Maybe if OpenSkies come through, but until then I think LGW is out of the question.

Jetblue has "gone international" for quite some time now. Did you mean TransAtlantic?
/// Braniff - We Get You There In Flying Colors /// (until Putnam got ahold of us)
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:33 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 18):
The Aux fuel tanks are available on the 319LR... the regular A319 doesn't even offer them as an option.

OK, I´m confused here. There are so many different nomenclatures, could somebody please enlighten me ? -100, -100ER, -200, -LR.

For the ACJ, 3 different fuel capacities are offered: 23860 liters, 32250 liters and 34430 liters, but all have the same MTOW of 75.5 tonnes.
According to Airbus, up to 6 auxilliary fuel tanks can be installed on the ACJ, so they don´t have the dimensions of a LD 3-46 container. How big are they ?

The A319, A320 and A321 are offered with 2 fuel capacities each: 23860/23700 liters, which seems to be the fuel capacity without aux. tanks, and 29500 liters. How many aux. tanks does this include ?

The A318 is only offered with the 23860 liters and can´t take containers either.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11866
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:09 pm

Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 2):
Im quite sure that that the A321 is inferior in range to the A320.

 checkmark 

Quoting B6FA4ever (Reply 5):
also, its just winter time when there are problems w/ the trans-cons due to the strong head winds.

 checkmark 

What B6 needs is a longer range A320. Since the centerline tank isn't of benifit, the simple solution is for IAE to actually develop the next V2500! (I've worked on some concepts, all would improve TSFC.) If B6 were to upgrade to 30k of thrust, any takeoff issues at BUR would disapear. And only a little bit better fuel economy would be required to let B6 fly coast to coast every day without tech stops.

Ok, wingtip treatments could also do the job, but that wouldn't be as exiting as an engine upgrade, now would it?  duck 

Quoting Flick70 (Reply 27):
Jetblue has "gone international" for quite some time now. Did you mean TransAtlantic?

Maybe. But I'd bet if the A320 could do JFK-STN, B6 would eventually fly it.
 bigthumbsup 

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Islandboy
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:07 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:21 am

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
I am honestly surprised that they went for the A320 in the first place, since it is inferior in range to both the A319 and A321. Maybe they did not realize how many trans-cons they were going to get into?

The A320 has more range than the A321.

Quoting Lrgt (Thread starter):
no range for WC-HNL or BOS-LGW

Why would B6 start ops to LGW on a narrow body that when configured for the 7+ hour journey..would probably total 100 seats or less.
Looks like the fresh wind has gone stale
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:22 am

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 8):
Ummmmm.....yes....a full NON-ER A319 has nearly the same range as a full 757!

You are so completely wrong it is hilarious

Quoting Lrgt (Reply 8):
A319: 6845km (source: this site)

This site's data sheets are suspect at a minimum

Quoting Btriple7 (Reply 12):
David Neeleman has already expressed that he does not want to go international.

I wonder if Mexico and the Dominican Republic know that they have been annexed by the United States

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 18):
The A320 is the perfect plane for jetBlue. It features the right mix of payload and capability.

Actually, based on B6's configuration and range needs, the 738's they were originially expecting to order would have been better. The A320 is, however, the perfect Airbus plane for B6

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 20):
The SAN-BOS leg may face weight restrictions, but that doesn't stop them from doing BUR-JFK, and it won't stop them from doing SAN-BOS.

Even with the limitations of SAN's runway, it still doesn't make it anywhere near as tough as BUR. SAN is at sea level, flat, cooler all year than Burbank and the runway is longer both in nominal and actual distance. Even if you say SAN becomes a 7000' runway with all the restrictions it faces, the A320 should have no issue launching and flying to BOS non-stop far more often than BUR-JFK.

Quoting Mikkel777 (Reply 24):
and also the cockpit-commonality with 330/340.

Which really means nothing because they are on different type certificates, meaning pilots still have to fully recertify

Quoting Mikkel777 (Reply 26):
Quoting Lrgt (Reply 25):
Versus the A320, yes....versus the A319, NO!

Try comparing the 70t MTOW versions for both aircraft

Or even compare the 737-700IGW to the higher MTOW A319s
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
mikkel777
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 1:15 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:15 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
Quoting Mikkel777 (Reply 24):
and also the cockpit-commonality with 330/340.

Which really means nothing because they are on different type certificates, meaning pilots still have to fully recertify

It is overrated, but transitioning from A320 to A330 takes less time than say 73G to 330. The cockpist is mostly the same, and so are many of the systems, but as you say, you still need the typerating. The cockpit commonality is a airbus-hype, and very overrated on a-net.

Another thing, regarding engines. How many operators chose A32X over 73G because of the IAE option? Not many had IAE engines in the fleet from earlier. Look at SK, the messy airline: MD90 with IAE, 737 with CFM, 340 with CFM and 321 with IAE. If engine commonality were very important, they wold order 321 with CFM and wait for the MD90 to leave the fleet.

UA also chose IAE, even if they had lot of experience with,and knowledge about the CFM. Engine commonality is also overrated, as long as you have a fleet of a certain size, and that size is less than many seem to think.
 
futureualpilot
Posts: 2404
Joined: Thu May 25, 2000 10:52 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:20 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
Even with the limitations of SAN's runway

As far as I know AA does SAN-BOS with the 757. I know it is different than the A320 but it is also heavier, and I would assume if the 757 can launch and fly non-stop to BOS from SAN an A320 could as well.
Life is better when you surf.
 
mikkel777
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 1:15 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:37 am

Quoting FutureUALpilot (Reply 33):
I would assume if the 757 can launch and fly non-stop to BOS from SAN an A320 could as well.

You can never compare a 75 with a 320, or 73 for that matter. The 75 can rotate before 6000ft for a 7:30 hour flight at 1500ft density alt, the 73 or 320 CAN NOT! Not even close.
The runway requirement and climbgradient is SO much better on a 75.

SAN BOS is at the edge for 320 range, but well within the limits of a 75, so even without the exessive thrust of the 75, the plane would have no problems with that routing.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:52 am

Quoting Mikkel777 (Reply 32):
but transitioning from A320 to A330 takes less time than say 73G to 330.

Theoretically, perhaps, but it is not as if Airbus pilots have never flown with a yoke in their lives. Flying dynamics, engine thrust differences, etc. all play into this. The A330 and A340 (which people here think are the same plane with a different number of engines) and on a different Type certificate because of differences in their development

Quoting Mikkel777 (Reply 32):
UA also chose IAE, even if they had lot of experience with,and knowledge about the CFM.

UA favors Pratt and Whitney whenever that is an option, and that is one of the main reasons for the choice of the V2500 over the CFM-56-5

Quoting Mikkel777 (Reply 32):
as long as you have a fleet of a certain size, and that size is less than many seem to think.

The size is 50

Quoting FutureUALpilot (Reply 33):
As far as I know AA does SAN-BOS with the 757. I know it is different than the A320 but it is also heavier, and I would assume if the 757 can launch and fly non-stop to BOS from SAN an A320 could as well.



Quoting Mikkel777 (Reply 34):
You can never compare a 75 with a 320, or 73 for that matter. The 75 can rotate before 6000ft for a 7:30 hour flight at 1500ft density alt, the 73 or 320 CAN NOT! Not even close.
The runway requirement and climbgradient is SO much better on a 75.

Mikkel777 has it completely right here. The 752 carries more fuel than its weight and engines burn compared to the A320 or 737, it has a higher performance wing, better thrust to weight, everything. The 757 is simply in a class of its own. That is why CO is able to fly BRS-EWR, against the wind or why a carrier can fly SNA-JFK.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:54 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
You are so completely wrong it is hilarious



Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
This site's data sheets are suspect at a minimum

In this case he is right and the data is right.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 31):
Which really means nothing because they are on different type certificates, meaning pilots still have to fully recertify

Oh well, some people never get over it that their beloved Boeing 737s don´t have this feature.

[Edited 2005-11-01 20:14:51]
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:18 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 36):
Oh well, some people never get over it that their beloved Boeing 737s don´t have this feature.

Don't have what feature? The 737 has a fully common type rating from the -300 through the -900, with differences training for the -100/-200

Quoting A342 (Reply 36):
In this case he is right and the data is right.

No, even Airbus claims that the HGW version of the A319 has only 6700km range, and that is still less than the 737-700IGW
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
PyroGX41487
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:06 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:47 am

B6 does NOT need planes with longer range or higher payload capacity. They are still one of (if not the) top LCCs in the US. The CEO made it perfectly clear to us that they will not expand beyond Mexico, and maybe in the future, Canada. You can bet B6 is NOT looking for a HNL or any sort of Hawaii expansion. As far as I know, their A320s are not even certified for over water routes, which cuts out LGW as well. They have a high demand, full flights and are making profits.

What's this bogus about the A319 and 737NG? I think way back in 02' when Neelman selected the A320, he had that considered that. Not even WN does cross-country routes with their 737s. B6 has two hubs, one in LGB, and its base in JFK. If I'm not mistaken, a 737-700 could NOT make that, based on published range/payload figures. B6 opted for a smaller aircraft for routes with lower demand (Buffalo, Rochester, and shorter range routes when the planes are closer to empty, thus freeing them up for the better longer haul sectors. They also are optimal for Northeast shuttle service). There is a pretty fine class difference between the A320 and A319 in terms of payload and range, but not a huge one in terms of pax capacity. They opted for the E190 because it basically carries about 50 less people than the A320, and because it was meant to operate shorter routes anyway. The A320 is FINE for B6's needs.

- Pyro
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:54 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
No, even Airbus claims that the HGW version of the A319 has only 6700km range, and that is still less than the 737-700IGW



From where do you get this information ?

On the Boeing website the 70.1-ton MTOW version is listed with 6038 km range. There are no infos about a "737-700IGW", and if this 70.1 ton version should be it, then its range is just inferior to the "HGW" A319: according to the Airbus website there is a A319 with 64-ton MTOW and 3360 km range and another version with 75.5-ton MTOW having 6800 km range.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
Don't have what feature?

The feature of transitioning to widebodys WITHOUT having to do another type rating.

And before a war about this breaks out (there have been many before), I´ll admit that the 757 and 767 share a common type rating, just to be on the safe side.  Smile
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:01 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 39):
There are no infos about a "737-700IGW", and if this 70.1 ton version should be it,

The 737-700IGW is not the 70.1 ton version. It is the 85.5 ton version

Quoting A342 (Reply 39):
The feature of transitioning to widebodys WITHOUT having to do another type rating.

You are completely wrong. They MUST do another type rating in order to transition from the A320 Family to the A330 or A340
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:12 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 40):
The 737-700IGW is not the 70.1 ton version. It is the 85.5 ton version

So what range has it ? It´s not on the BBJ site either (no specs provided there!).

Quoting N1120A (Reply 40):
They MUST do another type rating in order to transition from the A320 Family to the A330 or A340

Oops, yes, just found out, too. However, the transition is much faster.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:30 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 41):
Oops, yes, just found out, too. However, the transition is much faster.

Not particularly. It just depends on the pilot.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11866
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:09 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 35):

UA favors Pratt and Whitney whenever that is an option, and that is one of the main reasons for the choice of the V2500 over the CFM-56-5

That's because UA's conditions used to be Pratt's design specs. However, I'm not so sure of the relation post Pw4098. UA was very frustrated at the range hit with the 773's. (Which were equiped with the more fuel efficient Pw4090's.)

Quoting PyroGX41487 (Reply 38):
If I'm not mistaken, a 737-700 could NOT make that, based on published range/payload figures.

I've flown a full 738 from BDL to LAX. The 73G would have no issue LGB-JFK.

I'll stick with my prior ascertation that an improved economy A320 would be perfect for B6.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:18 pm

Quoting PyroGX41487 (Reply 38):
Not even WN does cross-country routes with their 737s.

Really? Tell WN that they don't fly LAX-BWI multiple times daily. Also, tell AA that they don't fly 738s, without winglets, on BOS-LAX

Quoting PyroGX41487 (Reply 38):
If I'm not mistaken, a 737-700 could NOT make that, based on published range/payload figures

The 737-700 most definately can make LGB-JFK/BOS. Aloha flew the 73G against the wind on days approaching 40 degrees Celsius off of BUR's 6886 foot main runway non-stop to OGG
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
vegasplanes
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:22 pm

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:52 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 29):
Quoting B6FA4ever (Reply 5):
also, its just winter time when there are problems w/ the trans-cons due to the strong head winds.

checkmark

What B6 needs is a longer range A320.

Also in Summer time here in the hot and high west coast, actually alot of planes have long rolls here when it is 120 in the shade.  Wink
 
KensukeAida
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:37 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:22 pm

Quoting PyroGX41487 (Reply 38):
B6 does NOT need planes with longer range or higher payload capacity. They are still one of (if not the) top LCCs in the US.

WN is.

And before everybody jumps on me, it's a true statement if we're talking purely from the point of profitability. The SEC filings are publicly available.

Quoting PyroGX41487 (Reply 38):

What's this bogus about the A319 and 737NG? I think way back in 02' when Neelman selected the A320, he had that considered that. Not even WN does cross-country routes with their 737s. B6 has two hubs, one in LGB, and its base in JFK. If I'm not mistaken, a 737-700 could NOT make that, based on published range/payload figures.

That's because it doesn't fit into their model. B6 is hub and spoke. WN is point to point.

And you're mistaken. WN's 73Gs are winglet equipped HGW versions and they never operate under maximum loads (137 pax is it due to the seating config).
WN does LAX to BWI daily which is roughly comparable.

Another point to make is that the -700 is closer to the A319 in specs than the A320. B6 has had difficulty filling the A320 and it has a range disadvantage over the A319. I think Needleman should have gone with the A319 if he had to go Airbus.

- John

[Edited 2005-11-02 08:24:47]
 
jetblueatjfk
Posts: 1556
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:42 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:47 pm

Quoting KensukeAida (Reply 46):
Another point to make is that the -700 is closer to the A319 in specs than the A320. B6 has had difficulty filling the A320 and it has a range disadvantage over the A319. I think Needleman should have gone with the A319 if he had to go Airbus.

They can fill an A320 up easily now and it is David Neeleman not needleman, that seems like a joke now, everyone puts it down.

I think they should have maybe gone with the 319 but the 320 was a good choice for them and it suits them perfectly.

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

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Thu Nov 03, 2005 1:23 am

Quoting KensukeAida (Reply 46):
And you're mistaken. WN's 73Gs are winglet equipped HGW versions and they never operate under maximum loads (137 pax is it due to the seating config).

WN's 73Gs are not IGW versions, they are standard 70.1 ton versions. Additionally, they were upgraded after WN had been flying them for a while.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Islandboy
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:07 am

RE: JetBlue (B6) Needs The A319!

Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:19 am

Quoting PyroGX41487 (Reply 38):
The CEO made it perfectly clear to us that they will not expand beyond Mexico, and maybe in the future, Canada

So then its safe to assume the Bahamas is domestic and part of the US. Don't let the pre-clearance fool you.

Quoting PyroGX41487 (Reply 38):
You can bet B6 is NOT looking for a HNL or any sort of Hawaii expansion

Hawaii isn't international in any event.

Quoting PyroGX41487 (Reply 38):
Not even WN does cross-country routes with their 737s

WN does cross country all the time.
Looks like the fresh wind has gone stale