Juan911411
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:27 pm

JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:23 am

http://www.airlinesanddestinations.c...s-finalizes-order-for-40-a320neos/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jet...-for-40-airbus-a320neos-2011-10-27

So what's you guess, where will this new A321s go??? we all know that they've talk about Hawaii for a long time, but will this mean the Europe is within their future???
 
Someone83
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:53 am

Quoting Juan911411 (Thread starter):
we all know that they've talk about Hawaii for a long time, but will this mean the Europe is within their future???

These are 321-"classic" and their range is to limited for that
 
jetfuel
Posts: 1027
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:27 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:55 am

Quoting Juan911411 (Thread starter):
we all know that they've talk about Hawaii for a long time, but will this mean the Europe is within their future???

The A321 has LESS range than the A320. The A321 will be used largely on existing routes that require higher pax loads
Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
 
Juan911411
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:21 pm

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 1):
These are 321-"classic" and their range is to limited for that

actually according to the first article these are for the A321 with sharklet wingtips.

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 2):
The A321 has LESS range than the A320. The A321 will be used largely on existing routes that require higher pax loads

With a range of up to 3200nm, they can clearly make it to Europe and Hawaii, I am just Dreaming guys.... Lets just try to discuss of what possibilities this could open up for them. I would like to see more South American service, that competes with NK and AA.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6341
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:22 pm

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 1):
These are 321-"classic" and their range is to limited for that

These will be "classic with sharklets" though. Which of course doesn't make them any more TATL capable  
Quoting jetfuel (Reply 2):
The A321 has LESS range than the A320

The Airbus ACAP's don't seem to reflect this - they seem to put the latest versions of both pretty much on a par

Rgds
 
NASBWI
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:12 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:14 pm

Quoting Juan911411 (Thread starter):
So what's you guess, where will this new A321s go???

From the rumor mill, the west coast of the US will see a few of them, due to slot restrictions, etc...That way, B6 can get more pax out there, even with limited flights. I'm also pretty sure they'll be used on some of the NYC-Caribbean flights (JFK-SJU/SDQ/KIN/MBJ) during peak travel seasons for added capacity. As far as the northeast to Florida, the jury's still out on that. Perhaps the 321s performing transcons will free up some 320s to add frequency on the Florida routes...
Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
 
Someone83
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:14 pm

Quoting Juan911411 (Reply 3):
actually according to the first article these are for the A321 with sharklet wingtips.

Their still classics even though the sharklets (why the not call in winglets as this is what it is) gives them a little extra range

Quoting Juan911411 (Reply 3):
With a range of up to 3200nm, they can clearly make it to Europe and Hawaii

3200nm is a very teoretical range, and with resonable load they cannot do Transatlantic runs......whatever your dream might be  
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 6346
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:24 pm

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 1):
These are 321-"classic" and their range is to limited for that
Quoting jetfuel (Reply 2):
The A321 has LESS range than the A320. The A321 will be used largely on existing routes that require higher pax loads

They almost have to fly NE to Florida. Their range is too poor for transcons. They could fly to the DR potentially. Not sure if NE to SJU is too lengthy. I'm surprised they'd want another fleet with the 321NEO coming.
 
airbazar
Posts: 6874
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:46 pm

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 6):
3200nm is a very teoretical range, and with resonable load they cannot do Transatlantic runs......whatever your dream might be

Or Hawaii.

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 2):
The A321 has LESS range than the A320. The A321 will be used largely on existing routes that require higher pax loads

  
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:03 pm

The article is not only about A321s, but converting A320s to A320NEOs.

[Edited 2011-10-28 09:15:38]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
NASBWI
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:12 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:08 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9):
The article is not about A321s, but converting A320s to A320NEOs.

From the second article:
"It said JetBlue has also decided to convert 30 pre-existing orders for A320s to larger A321 models." Now, I might be a little behind the curve here, but I always thought all this was old news, unless these 30 orders are in addition to the A321s (non-NEO) that B6 already placed an order for...any takers?
Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
 
richierich
Posts: 3289
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:38 pm

Quoting Juan911411 (Reply 3):
With a range of up to 3200nm, they can clearly make it to Europe and Hawaii, I am just Dreaming guys.... Lets just try to discuss of what possibilities this could open up for them. I would like to see more South American service, that competes with NK and AA.

With all due respect, you are dreaming if you think the A321 can make it to Hawaii or Europe from the respective North American mainland coasts. As others have said, it is not possible and the advertised 3,200 mile range is pretty much like saying my car can get 34 miles per gallon on the highway but I only get about 28-29 in mixed driving and averaging 34 mpg, even on longer highway drivesw, is not realistic. So unless Jetblue wants its passengers to swim part of the way, Europe and Hawaii are not in the cards with their current and future fleet. I guess the jury is still out on the A320NEO?!

I agree with what others have speculated. The larger aircraft will most likely be strategically deployed on new or existing routes that are slot restricted or where the extra seats would provide more lift. I think routes from the NE to Florida, Puerto Rico and the DR seem like the best bet.
None shall pass!!!!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11103
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:04 pm

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 1):
These are 321-"classic" and their range is to limited for that

I think they will be on the bread and butter routes to Florida and the sharklets will give them the range they need to add more capacity on transcon flights.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
UALWN
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:43 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 7):
They almost have to fly NE to Florida. Their range is too poor for transcons.

And yet US flies the non-sharklet version of the 321 from PHL to the West coast on a daily basis without issues...
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
AussieItaliano
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:14 pm

With NYC airports being slot controlled, it's a good way to increase capacity on key routes from NYC without having to add additional flights.

In addition, it would be possible to maintain current capacity on key routes while reducing the number of flights, thereby freeing up slots for new service.

The move makes total sense to me, especially on routes such as JFK-FLL. Switch out some of those 320s for 321s ASAP.
Third Runway - LHR, Second Runway - LGW, Build Them Both!!!
 
cslusarc
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:51 pm

If B6 is serious about increasing capacity from slot controlled airports like LGA and JFK why don't they upgrade most transcontinental flying (to/from LAX and SFO) to widebodies like the A330. I'm sure that B6 could configure a A330-300 with 350-400 seats similar to most regional flying in the Middle and Far East.
--cslusarc from YWG
 
flyby519
Posts: 1153
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:00 pm

Quoting cslusarc (Reply 15):
If B6 is serious about increasing capacity from slot controlled airports like LGA and JFK why don't they upgrade most transcontinental flying (to/from LAX and SFO) to widebodies like the A330. I'm sure that B6 could configure a A330-300 with 350-400 seats similar to most regional flying in the Middle and Far East.

That would be some serious overkill. Changing from an A320 with 150 pax to an A321 with ~180 pax is more realistic. They would get slaughtered if they ran 400 seats on transcons
These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
 
airbazar
Posts: 6874
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:16 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 13):
And yet US flies the non-sharklet version of the 321 from PHL to the West coast on a daily basis without issues...

The problem is West Coast to PHL in the Winter. I suspect they have fewer such routes in Winter.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:03 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 17):
The problem is West Coast to PHL in the Winter. I suspect they have fewer such routes in Winter.

Wouldn't PHL-SFO be more problematic than the return flight? Anyway, I've done that a number of times with US's 321s without trouble.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1366
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:53 pm

Quoting Juan911411 (Thread starter):
JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Anyone else see the thread title and think they were getting a chainsaw and splicing a fuselage section into an existing bird?
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word, and doesn't even make sense.
 
flightsimer
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:04 am

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 6):

because Blended Winglets is a trademark of Boeing.
Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
 
highflier92660
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:06 am

Take a 321, re-wing it with a slightly larger higher aspect ratio wing plus sharklets, beef up the landing gear, add considerably more fuel capacity, put a new generation engine of around 38,000 lb. thrust with a dazzling specific fuel consumption and (dare I say it) you have a Boeing 757 replacement.  

Until then I wouldn't get too over-ambitious about the range or the anticipated routes.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:15 am

You guys realize this news is old right. Was announced back in June.

JetBlue Orders A320NEO And Changes 30 To A321 (by Blueman87 Jun 21 2011 in Civil Aviation)

The only new thing is at their earning call this week B6 said the contracts were signed.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
laca773
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:10 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:22 am

Quoting airbazar (Reply 17):

The problem is West Coast to PHL in the Winter. I suspect they have fewer such routes in Winter.

Wrong direction. It would be flying westbound from PHL-SFO/SEA/PDX/LAX/SAN.... US now flies the newer version of the A321, A321-200 with the new improved engines which allows them to fly these transcons much much better now and with markedly increased reliability rate over the older model A321 they still have. These birds have also allowed US to increase capacity out of PHX with the A321-200s since field performance has also markedly been improved with the new engines.
 
airbazar
Posts: 6874
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:25 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 18):
Wouldn't PHL-SFO be more problematic than the return flight? Anyway, I've done that a number of times with US's 321s without trouble.

You're right, duh! Long day   
 
NASCARAirforce
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:27 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:32 am

I am betting we will see them at MCO

MCO-SJU
MCO-SDQ
MCO-BOG

All these flights fill the A320, even in the "slow season"

Probably will see them MCO-JFK, MCO-EWR too.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6341
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:14 am

Quoting laca773 (Reply 23):
US now flies the newer version of the A321, A321-200 with the new improved engines which allows them to fly these transcons much much better now and with markedly increased reliability rate over the older model A321 they still have. These birds have also allowed US to increase capacity out of PHX with the A321-200s since field performance has also markedly been improved with the new engines.

Thanks for this, Iaca773. To me there's always been a discrepancy between the R/P charts currently shown for the A321 (recognising that real-world pax ready weights are usually higher than the R/P chart allows), and comments made on this forum about the A321's abilities on US transcons, or lack of them.

I still harbour a suspicion that the A321 at today's spec has moved on from the aircraft to which the experiences raised on here relate, and is a lot more capable - at least as range-capable according to the specs as the 737-900ER, which posters on here claim has no issues on transcons or to Hawaii.
The sharklets should only enhance that capability.

As always, I'm open to being educated.

Rgds
 
Jack
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:58 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:26 am

According to the latest filing here (sorry I don't know how to link directly to the pdf), they still have 21oeo A320 for 2012 (7), 2013 (3), 2016 (3), 2017 (8):


http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irol-sec

It will be interesting to see which of these A320s will have factory fitted sharklets. The later 2012 & 2013 deliveries if they have sharklets may be the ones for long range flights? Also I guess they may convert the final 11 for 2016 & 2017 to A321 if the initial deliveries provide the benefits they are looking for.

Also any news on the retrofit programme that Jetblue were keen to be a launch customer for? That could provide loads of A320oeo ready for longer range flights in a few years.
 
N757ST
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:47 pm

The 321 will have roughly 100-200mi greater range then our classic 320s. They will be equiped with an aux tank. Transcons will not be an issue.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:02 pm

Quoting N757ST (Reply 28):
The 321 will have roughly 100-200mi greater range then our classic 320s. They will be equiped with an aux tank. Transcons will not be an issue.

Sharklets are supposed to decrease fuel consumption by 3.5%, which in the case of the A321-200 should translate into a 150nm range gain. Would that make the aux tanks obsolete and allow US to increase payloads?
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
User avatar
yellowtail
Posts: 3719
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:46 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:20 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 13):
And yet US flies the non-sharklet version of the 321 from PHL to the West coast on a daily basis without issues...

Because the flight is always empty     


Just kidding
When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
 
flyiguy
Posts: 888
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:21 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:49 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 13):
And yet US flies the non-sharklet version of the 321 from PHL to the West coast on a daily basis without issues...

Not true...when I worked at US, the flights from PHL to SFO and LAX frequently had tech stops in LAS and PHX for fuel do to heavy head winds and that was with the original configurations of 16 first class seats. Now they only have 12 which means more weight from adding coach seats.

Just my 0.02
The opinions I post are of mine and mine alone, not of the airline I work for.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6215
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:48 pm

Quoting HomsAR (Reply 19):
Anyone else see the thread title and think they were getting a chainsaw and splicing a fuselage section into an existing bird?

I did!  
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
laca773
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:10 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:52 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 26):
Thanks for this, Iaca773. To me there's always been a discrepancy between the R/P charts currently shown for the A321 (recognising that real-world pax ready weights are usually higher than the R/P chart allows), and comments made on this forum about the A321's abilities on US transcons, or lack of them.

I still harbour a suspicion that the A321 at today's spec has moved on from the aircraft to which the experiences raised on here relate, and is a lot more capable - at least as range-capable according to the specs as the 737-900ER, which posters on here claim has no issues on transcons or to Hawaii.
The sharklets should only enhance that capability.

As always, I'm open to being educated.

Rgds

You're welcome astuteman. You actually educated me about the improved performance of the A321-200 and I greatly appreciate that. Like you, I'm always open to learning new things too.

The 739ERs have had some issues I believe with performance to Hawaii. I believe CO/UA are being very careful about what a/c they send on the CO LAX-HNL/OGG flights either (73H or 739ERs) depending on the headwinds and etc..

I have always wondered why B6 never added additional fuel tanks to a small sub-fleet of their A320s or lease a few A319LRs for the longest transcons (BOS-SFO/SJC/LAX) as these routes seem to have the most issues.

Quoting flyiguy (Reply 31):

Not true...when I worked at US, the flights from PHL to SFO and LAX frequently had tech stops in LAS and PHX for fuel do to heavy head winds and that was with the original configurations of 16 first class seats. Now they only have 12 which means more weight from adding coach seats.

Just my 0.02

And what year was this in?
 
FutureUScapt
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:39 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:31 pm

Quoting flyiguy (Reply 31):
Not true...when I worked at US, the flights from PHL to SFO and LAX frequently had tech stops in LAS and PHX for fuel do to heavy head winds and that was with the original configurations of 16 first class seats. Now they only have 12 which means more weight from adding coach seats.

US' 321s currently have 16F. Pre-merger, the east 321s were outfitted with 26F, perhaps that's what you meant?
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:48 pm

Sounds like someone might want to improve the CASM/RASM situation of their fleet a bit   In these days of high fuel costs, I can see why.

Also, it seems to me that B6 does a fair bit more long transcons than many other carriers (a consequence of choosing JFK as a hub). I hope they don't end up with lots of tech stops in the winter like they seem to with the A320's. If the new builds A321's are truly on par with the A320...   
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
NASBWI
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:12 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:57 pm

Quoting laca773 (Reply 33):
I have always wondered why B6 never added additional fuel tanks to a small sub-fleet of their A320s

From what I recall, they did...and they were some of the high 500s/low -600s tail numbers (I believe all of the 'plaid' tails and a few of the early 'mosaic' tails). IIRC, the range gained from the extra tank didn't offset the cost of carrying the fuel (instead of payload), and the tanks were removed a few years ago.
Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
 
jfk777
Posts: 5840
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:12 pm

Quoting cslusarc (Reply 15):
If B6 is serious about increasing capacity from slot controlled airports like LGA and JFK why don't they upgrade most transcontinental flying (to/from LAX and SFO) to widebodies like the A330. I'm sure that B6 could configure a A330-300 with 350-400 seats similar to most regional flying in the Middle and Far East.

AN A330 for JB would require too much time to turn around. The day of the wide-body from New York to Florida died with Eastern. A320 are what JB does well, keep on doing what you do well. IF JB ever wanted to fly from FLL, IAD, JFK & BOS to LGW then an A330 would be the right plane.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7681
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:50 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 7):
Their range is too poor for transcons.

Not true at all. This is an (only partially true) legend about US A321 which are 15 years older than the aircraft being discussed here... As others have noted, these winglet A321 would be substantially more capable than anything B6 currently has.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 18):
Wouldn't PHL-SFO be more problematic than the return flight? Anyway, I've done that a number of times with US's 321s without trouble.

Of course, that is a scheduled flight with a high degree of completion certainty.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:53 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 37):
The day of the wide-body from New York to Florida died with Eastern.

Those AA A300 are not widebodies?   

As for JetBlue using A330s, I don't think it's necessarily the turn-around times that keep them from buying them but rather their business model that prohibits it. A B6 configured A333 would be more than twice the size of their current A321s which means that they'd either have to grow demand on any current A321 route by over 100%, or cut frequencies. I am sure B6 could identify a number of routes on which A330s could work, but in total they'd need too few to justify introducing a new type to their fleet.

And let's not forget the flexibility aspect. If there is heavy demand for a certain flight, they can just add another frequency and cut it once demand drops, or alternatively simply adjust fares. Also, 190 seats are a lot easier to fill than 350 and a poor 50% load factor has you flying 90 empty seats around, versus 175 on the A330.

Upgauging the equipment would only make sense on routes that currently fill several narrow bodies that leave within a short time window of each other (otherwise you're cutting frequency, or increase capacity (lower yields that kill efficiency edge), that produce consistent demand levels (hard to fill so many seats) and where the efficiency gain offsets the additional cost a type introduction incurs. From what I can see, B6 doesn't have enough such routes to justify acquiring a big enough subfleet, especially when taking into consideration that these routes would all have to mesh time-wise or else you're looking at a lot of down time.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
flyiguy
Posts: 888
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:21 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:09 am

Quoting FutureUScapt (Reply 34):
US' 321s currently have 16F. Pre-merger, the east 321s were outfitted with 26F, perhaps that's what you meant?

yes it is...But even with more in First they still did tech stops. Now with less in first and more in coach the tech stops will increase.
The opinions I post are of mine and mine alone, not of the airline I work for.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:24 am

Quoting flyiguy (Reply 31):
Not true...when I worked at US, the flights from PHL to SFO and LAX frequently had tech stops in LAS and PHX for fuel do to heavy head winds and that was with the original configurations of 16 first class seats. Now they only have 12 which means more weight from adding coach seats.

I was replying to somebody stating that 321 could not be used in transcon routes. Well, that's not true. Even the old US 321s are used on PHL-SFO. There's no doubt that B6 will be able to successfully deploy the new 321s in transcon routes, even if they may run into fuel trouble from time to time.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
wn676
Posts: 1127
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:33 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:45 am

Quoting laca773 (Reply 23):
Wrong direction. It would be flying westbound from PHL-SFO/SEA/PDX/LAX/SAN.... US now flies the newer version of the A321, A321-200 with the new improved engines which allows them to fly these transcons much much better now and with markedly increased reliability rate over the older model A321 they still have. These birds have also allowed US to increase capacity out of PHX with the A321-200s since field performance has also markedly been improved with the new engines.

There are virtually no differences in performance between the PMUS A321s and those that have been delivered since 2008. The IAE-powered aircraft can bump thrust to 33,000 lbs, and that's about the only increase in performance they gained with the new aircraft. All subfleets share the same characteristics in regards to payload, MTOW, fuel capacity, etc. If there was such a huge difference between subfleets, it would be reflected in scheduling...i.e, you'd see the newer aircraft always flying routes like PHL-SFO which, if I'm not mistaken, is the longest route that US deploys their A321s on.

The reason you see more A321s in PHX these days is due to aircraft replacement needs, not field performance.

Quoting flyiguy (Reply 40):
yes it is...But even with more in First they still did tech stops. Now with less in first and more in coach the tech stops will increase.

Really? They've been flying the 16F configuration for years now, so any coinciding spike in diversions would have been noticed by now and likely remedied by the planning and scheduling department. The whole tech stop issue is blown out of proportion IMO and only happens in rare instances when winds are unusually strong, planes are being rerouted around weather, arrival restrictions are in effect at the destination, or some combination of those.
Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: JetBlue Converts Pre-existing A320 To A321

Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:03 am

Quoting airbazar (Reply 17):
The problem is West Coast to PHL in the Winter. I suspect they have fewer such routes in Winter.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 38):
Not true at all. This is an (only partially true) legend about US A321 which are 15 years older than the aircraft being discussed here... As others have noted, these winglet A321 would be substantially more capable than anything B6 currently has.
Quoting wn676 (Reply 42):
Really? They've been flying the 16F configuration for years now, so any coinciding spike in diversions would have been noticed by now and likely remedied by the planning and scheduling department. The whole tech stop issue is blown out of proportion IMO and only happens in rare instances when winds are unusually strong, planes are being rerouted around weather, arrival restrictions are in effect at the destination, or some combination of those.

It's a total legend on A-net that has irritated me for years. I've been flying the 321 transcon from PHL and CLT since 2003 and have NEVER made a stop for fuel. I'm not saying it doesn't on occasion happen, but I've done winter westbound flights on a fully loaded 321 with flight times over six hours with legal fuel reserves at the other end. Take it from someone actually operating this airplane, not some armchair airline operations expert.

There, I feel better now.

[Edited 2011-11-01 00:14:44]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 7BOEING7, afterburner, AirlineCritic, b377, Baidu [Spider], CP747, hkcanadaexpat, hOMSaR, iahcsr, Mumrik, PDXPOL, wjcandee, Wolfman, ZK-NBT and 273 guests