So the big news of this week for Jetblue is A321NEO officially joining servicehttp://otp.investis.com/clients/us/jetb ... wsid=63363
All the photos and reviews look really good.
looks like they might be soon offering more amenities on the shuttle routes out of BOShttps://thepointsguy.com/news/jetblue-c ... le-routes/
not sure NYC also includes JFK and EWR also. I think they should consider adding these amenities to ORD and BWI if they really want to be competitive.
A photo on where JetBlue thinks A321LR/XLR could fly tohttps://twitter.com/e_russell/status/11 ... 92/photo/1
Looks like Dublin, London, Paris, Amsterdam, Madrid and Lisbon for LR. I actually don't see the need for Lisbon given their relationship with TP.
for XLR, they also include EDI, MAN, BRU, Porto as cities who are already within LR range but would be served with XLR.
On top of that, looks like for XLr they include BCN, Valencia, Marrakech, Bordeau, Nice, Frankfurt, Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm, Berlin, Hamburg, Milan, Rome, Geneva and Venice. Surprising that Munich isn't included in what is a very wide list they are considering. But gives you an idea of their thought process here.
On a complete unrelated topic, I took a look at A220 and A321NEO economics given that they are the new aircraft in play here
At baseline. I treat the CASM of 150 seat A320 to be 1. So everything is relative to this. So the overall cost of A320 is 150.
JetBlue previously said stage length adjusted CASM on E90 is 20% higher than A320, so I have 1.2 as per seat cost and 120 as overall cost.
Based on comments JetBlue made about A321, I calculated it's overall cost to be 167.0 (or 8% higher than A320 overall. Not sure how accurate this is). So I got per seat cost of A321 to be around 0.835. And the per seat cost of 162 seat A320 to be 0.926. Although this is probably off since there is an extra FA.
the interesting part is when we look at A220. JetBlue said the fuel cost of A220 is 40% lower (or 60%) per seat compared to E90 and overall cost per seat is 29% lower. Based on that. I got per seat cost of 1.2 * 0.71 = 0.852 for A220, so not far off from 200 seat A321CEO and quite a bit better than 162 seat A320. To verify this, I multiplied by the number of seats per A220 which is 140 and got total operating cost of 119.3, which is almost the same as E90. That matches JetBlue's previous statement that A220's total operating cost is about the same as E90.
for A321NEO, I assume that the fuel cost is 16% lower than A320CEO based on the comments I've read on this board and the remaining cost to be the same. Using A220 as model, I calculated it to be around 60% non-fuel cost and 40% fuel cost per flight. Of course there are other fixed costs that are factored in a company's earning, but don't matter on a per flight basis. Using that, I get that A321NEO is about 6.4% lower than A321CEO per seat, which is abou 0.785
given this, it's clear that A220 will not only make the existing E90 routes a lot more economical, but also make A320 routes much more economical. It would have a slightly lower CASM than even a hypothetical 162 seat A320NEO with much fewer seats to fill. Which is probably why B6 upgauged all the A320NEO orders. A hypothetical 165 seat A220-500 would be a dream aircraft for B6 on many of the existing routes, since it would be able to replace the capacity of A320 with A321NEO costs.