Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
asuflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:48 pm

AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:21 pm

So far the launch of JFK-GEO has been off to a rough start for AA since the inaugural on December 18th. The inaugural return flight was 12 hours late and had to stop in MIA. 4 other flights have had to stop in SJU. It appears the 738 does not have the range at max payload for the flight, and JFK-GEO flights typically have very high LF's and lots of baggage, however BW has been able to serve JFK-GEO nonstop for years, partly because their 738's only have 154 seats. The flight should have been planned with a 757.

https://www.stlucianewsonline.com/guyan ... -12-hours/
 
Antarius
Posts: 2403
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:38 pm

I'm assuming this was originally planned to be a MAX route. AA doesn't have spare 757s hanging around.

That said, this is clearly not working so either AA needs to weight restrict or change metal. Would a neo work for this?
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:45 pm

I’m confused why an American 737-800 can’t fly a 2500 mile route. It is the same length as a domestic transcon. AA has flown plenty of 737-800 routes that long.

Is it because a direct route requires ETOPS?
 
N757ST
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:47 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I’m confused why an American 737-800 can’t fly a 2500 mile route. It is the same length as a domestic transcon. AA has flown plenty of 737-800 routes that long.

Is it because a direct route requires ETOPS?


The 7400 foot long runway limits the max takeoff weight.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:53 pm

N757ST wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I’m confused why an American 737-800 can’t fly a 2500 mile route. It is the same length as a domestic transcon. AA has flown plenty of 737-800 routes that long.

Is it because a direct route requires ETOPS?


The 7400 foot long runway limits the max takeoff weight.


The tech stops have been on JFK-GEO. I was wondering about ETOPS since the UA 737 fleet has ETOPS so they can fly direct routes to the Caribbean since ETOPS 75 is required to avoid the detour to stay near the Bahamas, Historically United/Continental chose to add ETOPS for their EWR to Caribbean 737 network whereas American/US didn’t for their narrowbody (except 757) network to the Caribbean.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8031
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:56 pm

Some choices that maximize profitability compromise operational reliability. AA has a lot of planes that could fly that route - not just 757s, but 767s, too. (Or, seat-block 738s as noted.) Implicitly they're communicating that GEO isn't important enough. That may haunt them for a while. Yes, blocking a dozen seats northbound over the holidays would cost them a lot of revenue.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:59 pm

N757ST wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I’m confused why an American 737-800 can’t fly a 2500 mile route. It is the same length as a domestic transcon. AA has flown plenty of 737-800 routes that long.

Is it because a direct route requires ETOPS?


The 7400 foot long runway limits the max takeoff weight.


Should use an A321 or A321neo. Should not have any problems with the runway at MTOW and the range with the correct number of ACT.

edit: The 737-800 should actually not have a TOW limitation on a 7400 feet, 2250 m runway.
Last edited by mjoelnir on Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:59 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I’m confused why an American 737-800 can’t fly a 2500 mile route. It is the same length as a domestic transcon. AA has flown plenty of 737-800 routes that long.

Is it because a direct route requires ETOPS?

Looking at the flight track, most of it is over the water, so I don't think that would be it. Looking at the range chart of a 737-800, if you're at maximum zero fuel weight, you can only fly about 2,000 nautical miles if you're at maximum take-off weight. You'd need to take 5,000 pounds off of the zero fuel weight in order to fly 2,500 miles.
N757ST wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I’m confused why an American 737-800 can’t fly a 2500 mile route. It is the same length as a domestic transcon. AA has flown plenty of 737-800 routes that long.

Is it because a direct route requires ETOPS?

The 7400 foot long runway limits the max takeoff weight.

Not really sure how the runway length at the destination is relevant to the maximum take-off weight since you shouldn't be anywhere near that weight by the time you land.
Captain Kevin
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:05 pm

AirKevin wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I’m confused why an American 737-800 can’t fly a 2500 mile route. It is the same length as a domestic transcon. AA has flown plenty of 737-800 routes that long.

Is it because a direct route requires ETOPS?

Looking at the flight track, most of it is over the water, so I don't think that would be it. Looking at the range chart of a 737-800, if you're at maximum zero fuel weight, you can only fly about 2,000 nautical miles if you're at maximum take-off weight. You'd need to take 5,000 pounds off of the zero fuel weight in order to fly 2,500 miles.
]


Jfk-GEO is 2200nm, which is the same length as MIA-SFO. That is a route that AA has flown 737-800s for years. 2600sm is not an issue normally for the 737-800
Last edited by Weatherwatcher1 on Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Antarius
Posts: 2403
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:06 pm

AirKevin wrote:
Not really sure how the runway length at the destination is relevant to the maximum take-off weight since you shouldn't be anywhere near that weight by the time you land.


I think the poster was thinking the flight was reversed GEO-JFK
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:10 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I’m confused why an American 737-800 can’t fly a 2500 mile route. It is the same length as a domestic transcon. AA has flown plenty of 737-800 routes that long.

Is it because a direct route requires ETOPS?

Looking at the flight track, most of it is over the water, so I don't think that would be it. Looking at the range chart of a 737-800, if you're at maximum zero fuel weight, you can only fly about 2,000 nautical miles if you're at maximum take-off weight. You'd need to take 5,000 pounds off of the zero fuel weight in order to fly 2,500 miles.
N757ST wrote:

Jfk-GEO is the same length as MIA-SFO, which is a route that AA has flown 737-800s for years. 2600sm is not an issue normally for the 737-800

Yes, but two things to take into consideration. The first is how much weight are they carrying on MIA-SFO versus JFK-GEO. If JFK-GEO is carrying more in terms of passenger baggage or cargo, you could have a problem. The second is the fuel regulations for the flights. JFK-GEO is an international flight, so if the reserve requirements are higher and/or the nearest alternate airport is further away, you could have a problem. I'm not sure if MIA-SFO would be following the domestic fuel regulations or flag fuel regulations since I don't know off hand if it hits the 6-hour mark or not.
Captain Kevin
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2223
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:11 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
N757ST wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I’m confused why an American 737-800 can’t fly a 2500 mile route. It is the same length as a domestic transcon. AA has flown plenty of 737-800 routes that long.

Is it because a direct route requires ETOPS?


The 7400 foot long runway limits the max takeoff weight.


Should use an A321 or A321neo. Should not have any problems with the runway at MTOW and the range with the correct number of ACT.

edit: The 737-800 should actually not have a TOW limitation on a 7400 feet, 2250 m runway.


The A321 needs needs more runway than the 738.

You guys are forgetting performance factors outside of payload/range;

obstacle departure procedures and single engine climb performance
accelerate stop distances on contaminated runways
anti ice penalties

there is alot more than just 'payload/range'.

Not to mention most flights are fighting 100knot headwinds going north right now. I just did it yesterday.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
N757ST
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:11 pm

I assumed the tech stop was on the north leg.

I’m pretty sure the aa 738s are extended over water equipped because I see them routinely operating into BdA.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:15 pm

N757ST wrote:
I assumed the tech stop was on the north leg.

I’m pretty sure the aa 738s are extended over water equipped because I see them routinely operating into BdA.


There have been tech stops or diversions on both north and south. Some days it goes nonstop and others it stops. Three days so far have had southbound stops.
 
N757ST
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:18 pm

Does GEO use a higher standard bag weight similar to the Dominican Republic? I could easily see a MgToW issue out of JFK if the flight carried an alternate and was loaded with people and bags. Southbound flights this time of year the VFR destinations tend to carry an excessive amount of luggage. I’ve seen my A320 get people limited pretty quick especially if an alternate is required going to the islands around Christmas.
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:30 pm

N757ST wrote:
I assumed the tech stop was on the north leg.

I’m pretty sure the aa 738s are extended over water equipped because I see them routinely operating into BdA.


Extended overwater flight is defined as one over water at a distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline. As long as you stay within 60 minutes from an airport, all you need on board an extended overwater flight is a life preserver for each passenger.

When flying from the US to BDA, you are within 60 min diversion time to the nearest usable airport for the entire flight.

So a B738 won’t need anything more than life preservers to fly JFK-BDA. Not even a life raft.

Not the same as JFK-GEO, where the ideal routing most likely might need more than 60 or even 75 min diversion time from nearest usable airport.
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
 
User avatar
chepos
Posts: 7273
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 9:40 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:40 pm

The flight for the SB sector has been now capped at 140 and NB at 157 due to the operating restrictions. Maybe during the busy holiday periods a 757 should be the equipment used (or the MAX once it’s back). MIA is a shorter stage length so the 738 has hd no problems there (was a 319 until 12/18).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fly the Flag!!!!
 
raylee67
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:51 pm

chepos wrote:
The flight for the SB sector has been now capped at 140 and NB at 157 due to the operating restrictions. Maybe during the busy holiday periods a 757 should be the equipment used (or the MAX once it’s back). MIA is a shorter stage length so the 738 has hd no problems there (was a 319 until 12/18).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If pax number needs to be restricted to 157 anyway, wouldn't it be better to use the ex-US A320? A320 should have sufficient capabilities to fly the route with full payload (150 seats). It would be more efficient to fly a full A320 than a 70% full 738. Does AA have any A320 based at JFK? if yes, are the A320s ETOPS certified?
319/20/21 332/33 342/43/45 359/51 388 707 717 732/36/3G/38/39 74R/42/43/44/4E/48 757 762/63 772/7L/73/7W 788/89 D10 M80 135/40/45 175/90 DH1/4 CRJ/R7 L10
AY LH OU SR BA FI LX
AA DL UA NW AC CP WS FL NK PD
CI NH SQ KA CX JL BR OZ TG KE CA CZ NZ JQ RS
 
Boston757
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:39 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:51 pm

AA 737-800 used on MIA-SFO-MIA is almost always weight restricted regardless of time of year. Its (737-800)not enough aircraft for JFK-GEO or transcon. Lus wanted to put the 737 om MIA-LIM, they had no idea. It could just barley make it with no Pax, no cargo and no weather along the. The CCS 757 was put on MIA-UIO.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:52 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
N757ST wrote:

The 7400 foot long runway limits the max takeoff weight.


Should use an A321 or A321neo. Should not have any problems with the runway at MTOW and the range with the correct number of ACT.

edit: The 737-800 should actually not have a TOW limitation on a 7400 feet, 2250 m runway.


The A321 needs needs more runway than the 738.


Actually about the same with the standard version. You can of course have a short field kit on the 737-800.

It is astonishing how people do not want to accept that the A321 has an exzellent runway performance.

Varsity1 wrote:
You guys are forgetting performance factors outside of payload/range;

obstacle departure procedures and single engine climb performance
accelerate stop distances on contaminated runways
anti ice penalties

there is alot more than just 'payload/range'.

Not to mention most flights are fighting 100knot headwinds going north right now. I just did it yesterday.


Being such an expert, could you point out the limitation that apply in regards to single engine climb, accelerated stop distance on contaminated runways and ice penalties at GEO? Or are you just blowing the experts hot air to confuse the issue? I can hardly imagine that the runways at JFK provides limitation to a MTOW take off.

If you are going north, you hardly have worry about ice at GEO. Having to fight headwinds on the way north is actually exactly the point, why a fully loaded 737-800 has its problems. I assume the route was planed for a 737-8 rather than the 737-800 operating it.

The MZFW for the A321 would be about 73 t. MTOW about 93 t. The A321 with the right number of ATC should be able to take 20 t of fuel and that should be enough for GEO to JFK even with a headwind. JFK to GEO should be easier.
 
User avatar
chepos
Posts: 7273
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 9:40 am

AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:57 pm

Boston757 wrote:
AA 737-800 used on MIA-SFO-MIA is almost always weight restricted regardless of time of year. Its (737-800)not enough aircraft for JFK-GEO or transcon. Lus wanted to put the 737 om MIA-LIM, they had no idea. It could just barley make it with no Pax, no cargo and no weather along the. The CCS 757 was put on MIA-UIO.


LIM was considered as a potential MAX route, never heard of the 737NG considered for MIA-LIM (much less DFW with a flying time usually of 6:30 give or take). UIO has been a 757 for years, even before CCS was canceled, it even transitioned to the MAX briefly before that equipment was grounded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fly the Flag!!!!
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:10 pm

chepos wrote:
The flight for the SB sector has been now capped at 140 and NB at 157 due to the operating restrictions. Maybe during the busy holiday periods a 757 should be the equipment used (or the MAX once it’s back). MIA is a shorter stage length so the 738 has hd no problems there (was a 319 until 12/18).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Interesting. You would think the NB would be more penalized, and yet it’s the SB sector.

I guess the long queue for takeoff during the evening rush at JFK doesn’t help.
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
 
Rossiya747
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:56 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:11 pm

Wait isn't Dynamic going to start the flight from JFK-GEO?
223 319 320 321 332 333 346 388 734 737 738 739 38M 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 77W 788 789 208 CRJ2 E145 E190 UA DL AA WN AC CM 4O AV 2K FI DY D8 SK LH EI FR U2 IB OS LX BA VS BT PS MS SA SW QR EY HY AI 9W TG SQ MH AK D7 QZ BR NH CA QF MI LV/IB VY AL
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15098
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:11 pm

Varsity1 wrote:

The A321 needs needs more runway than the 738.

You guys are forgetting performance factors outside of payload/range;

obstacle departure procedures and single engine climb performance
accelerate stop distances on contaminated runways
anti ice penalties

there is alot more than just 'payload/range'.

Not to mention most flights are fighting 100knot headwinds going north right now. I just did it yesterday.


I just ran a plan from GEO to JFK holding BOS as an alternate. Flight time 5:25 (average wind 266/30j fuel required around 22 tonnes. Payload available around 24 tonnes.

The runway in GEO is currently being extended by some 1500 m by extending 06/24 at both ends.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
11C
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:16 pm

N757ST wrote:
Does GEO use a higher standard bag weight similar to the Dominican Republic? I could easily see a MgToW issue out of JFK if the flight carried an alternate and was loaded with people and bags. Southbound flights this time of year the VFR destinations tend to carry an excessive amount of luggage. I’ve seen my A320 get people limited pretty quick especially if an alternate is required going to the islands around Christmas.


That was my question, as well. The non-standard bags weights (usually southbound) really add up, especially since southbound pax usually check lot of bags.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14473
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:26 pm

Thenoflyzone wrote:
N757ST wrote:
I assumed the tech stop was on the north leg.

I’m pretty sure the aa 738s are extended over water equipped because I see them routinely operating into BdA.


Extended overwater flight is defined as one over water at a distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline. As long as you stay within 60 minutes from an airport, all you need on board an extended overwater flight is a life preserver for each passenger.

When flying from the US to BDA, you are within 60 min diversion time to the nearest usable airport for the entire flight.

So a B738 won’t need anything more than life preservers to fly JFK-BDA. Not even a life raft.

Not the same as JFK-GEO, where the ideal routing most likely might need more than 60 or even 75 min diversion time from nearest usable airport.


I know at the speeds/times AA uses for the 738, routes on stuff like JFK-SJU/SXM do not require ETOPS of any sort (though they do require rafts). That suggests strongly that, barring strong winds aloft, JFK-GEO doesn’t either.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
N757ST
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:28 pm

Thenoflyzone wrote:
N757ST wrote:
I assumed the tech stop was on the north leg.

I’m pretty sure the aa 738s are extended over water equipped because I see them routinely operating into BdA.


Extended overwater flight is defined as one over water at a distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline. As long as you stay within 60 minutes from an airport, all you need on board an extended overwater flight is a life preserver for each passenger.

When flying from the US to BDA, you are within 60 min diversion time to the nearest usable airport for the entire flight.

So a B738 won’t need anything more than life preservers to fly JFK-BDA. Not even a life raft.

Not the same as JFK-GEO, where the ideal routing most likely might need more than 60 or even 75 min diversion time from nearest usable airport.


Isnt a raft required over 50 miles off shore? Bermuda is a bit more involved, an HF radio is required at least. There is one small area east of L462 that exceeds the 60 minute requirement, but otherwise all the L routes are available and are pretty in line for GEO ops, I don’t think anyone is going east of L462.
 
F27500
Posts: 831
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:52 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:07 pm

Rossiya747 wrote:
Wait isn't Dynamic going to start the flight from JFK-GEO?



Yea .. they'll last for about 45 minutes.
 
ilovepabst
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:19 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:24 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
Thenoflyzone wrote:
N757ST wrote:
I assumed the tech stop was on the north leg.

I’m pretty sure the aa 738s are extended over water equipped because I see them routinely operating into BdA.


Extended overwater flight is defined as one over water at a distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline. As long as you stay within 60 minutes from an airport, all you need on board an extended overwater flight is a life preserver for each passenger.

When flying from the US to BDA, you are within 60 min diversion time to the nearest usable airport for the entire flight.

So a B738 won’t need anything more than life preservers to fly JFK-BDA. Not even a life raft.

Not the same as JFK-GEO, where the ideal routing most likely might need more than 60 or even 75 min diversion time from nearest usable airport.


I know at the speeds/times AA uses for the 738, routes on stuff like JFK-SJU/SXM do not require ETOPS of any sort (though they do require rafts). That suggests strongly that, barring strong winds aloft, JFK-GEO doesn’t either.


AA 738 is not ETOPS certified and routing wouldn't require it either
 
windian425
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:22 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:30 pm

These flights were always scheduled for the 738 even when the MAX was available.
 
Brickell305
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:07 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:46 pm

windian425 wrote:
These flights were always scheduled for the 738 even when the MAX was available.

JFK-GEO was announced in May. The MAX grounding began in March. Mind you, they would’ve expected the MAX back in December at the time they announced so they could’ve scheduled it that way but still something to take into account.

Also, I don’t think AA ever scheduled the MAX to fly to JFK. I know they ran it on MIA-LGA but don’t think it was ever planned for any other NYC airport.
 
User avatar
chepos
Posts: 7273
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 9:40 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:52 pm

Brickell305 wrote:
windian425 wrote:
These flights were always scheduled for the 738 even when the MAX was available.

JFK-GEO was announced in May. The MAX grounding began in March. Mind you, they would’ve expected the MAX back in December at the time they announced so they could’ve scheduled it that way but still something to take into account.

Also, I don’t think AA ever scheduled the MAX to fly to JFK. I know they ran it on MIA-LGA but don’t think it was ever planned for any other NYC airport.


The MAX was based mostly out of MIA, and to my knowledge JFK did not get any MAX flying. That is not to say the aircraft had it remained in service would have eventually operated into JFK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fly the Flag!!!!
 
baje427
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:53 pm

The Max has really thrown AA for a loop but as others have mentioned this demonstrates to the residents in Guyana that the route is not viewed as priority. With summer season over don't AA have slack with their 757's?
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14473
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:56 pm

baje427 wrote:
The Max has really thrown AA for a loop but as others have mentioned this demonstrates to the residents in Guyana that the route is not viewed as priority. With summer season over don't AA have slack with their 757's?


I don’t know about the priority idea. The 738s are nicer on board than the 752s; it’s not immediately clear to me that a smaller, nicer airplane demonstrates less “priority” than a larger but not as nice one (not to mention that the dispatch reliability of the 752s really isn’t great).
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:01 pm

ilovepabst wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
Thenoflyzone wrote:

Extended overwater flight is defined as one over water at a distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline. As long as you stay within 60 minutes from an airport, all you need on board an extended overwater flight is a life preserver for each passenger.

When flying from the US to BDA, you are within 60 min diversion time to the nearest usable airport for the entire flight.

So a B738 won’t need anything more than life preservers to fly JFK-BDA. Not even a life raft.

Not the same as JFK-GEO, where the ideal routing most likely might need more than 60 or even 75 min diversion time from nearest usable airport.


I know at the speeds/times AA uses for the 738, routes on stuff like JFK-SJU/SXM do not require ETOPS of any sort (though they do require rafts). That suggests strongly that, barring strong winds aloft, JFK-GEO doesn’t either.


AA 738 is not ETOPS certified and routing wouldn't require it either


Would ETOPS allow a more direct route?
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14473
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:11 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
ilovepabst wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

I know at the speeds/times AA uses for the 738, routes on stuff like JFK-SJU/SXM do not require ETOPS of any sort (though they do require rafts). That suggests strongly that, barring strong winds aloft, JFK-GEO doesn’t either.


AA 738 is not ETOPS certified and routing wouldn't require it either


Would ETOPS allow a more direct route?


Not really. If you take a look at an enroute chart (I’m traveling and can’t post an image), L462 and all routes west of it are available without ETOPS.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
CanesFan
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:49 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:12 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
ilovepabst wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

I know at the speeds/times AA uses for the 738, routes on stuff like JFK-SJU/SXM do not require ETOPS of any sort (though they do require rafts). That suggests strongly that, barring strong winds aloft, JFK-GEO doesn’t either.


AA 738 is not ETOPS certified and routing wouldn't require it either


Would ETOPS allow a more direct route?


It wouldn’t make much of a difference, if any.
 
ilovepabst
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:19 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:21 pm

CanesFan wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
ilovepabst wrote:

AA 738 is not ETOPS certified and routing wouldn't require it either


Would ETOPS allow a more direct route?


It wouldn’t make much of a difference, if any.


You would be going a ridiculous distance out of your way for ETOPS from JFK-GEO
 
CanesFan
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:49 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:35 pm

Thenoflyzone wrote:
N757ST wrote:
I assumed the tech stop was on the north leg.

I’m pretty sure the aa 738s are extended over water equipped because I see them routinely operating into BdA.


Extended overwater flight is defined as one over water at a distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline. As long as you stay within 60 minutes from an airport, all you need on board an extended overwater flight is a life preserver for each passenger.

When flying from the US to BDA, you are within 60 min diversion time to the nearest usable airport for the entire flight.

So a B738 won’t need anything more than life preservers to fly JFK-BDA. Not even a life raft.

Not the same as JFK-GEO, where the ideal routing most likely might need more than 60 or even 75 min diversion time from nearest usable airport.

The 738 requires 3 56-man life rafts for extended overwater operations.
 
rajincajun01
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:16 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:57 pm

Was the inaugural flight only on an Airbus? The article’s caption said that was a pic of the inaugural flight.
A319 A320 A321 A332 B1900 B717 B727 B737 B757 B767 B777 B787 CR2 CR7 CRJ9 E120 ERJ135 ERJ145 L1011 MD80 SF340 AvGeek Superstore
 
CanesFan
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:49 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:59 pm

rajincajun01 wrote:
Was the inaugural flight only on an Airbus? The article’s caption said that was a pic of the inaugural flight.

The inaugural flight was on the 738. The caption for the photo must refer to the inaugural flight from Miami, which uses the airbus.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3794
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:01 pm

rajincajun01 wrote:
Was the inaugural flight only on an Airbus? The article’s caption said that was a pic of the inaugural flight.


The caption is "AA's first flight to Guyana" - is the MIA-GEO inaugural which was an A319.
 
User avatar
chepos
Posts: 7273
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 9:40 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:37 pm

CanesFan wrote:
rajincajun01 wrote:
Was the inaugural flight only on an Airbus? The article’s caption said that was a pic of the inaugural flight.

The inaugural flight was on the 738. The caption for the photo must refer to the inaugural flight from Miami, which uses the airbus.


MIA is now a 738


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fly the Flag!!!!
 
User avatar
chepos
Posts: 7273
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 9:40 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:39 pm

rajincajun01 wrote:
Was the inaugural flight only on an Airbus? The article’s caption said that was a pic of the inaugural flight.


When GEO first opened over a year ago the flight started out as a 319, 4 times a week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fly the Flag!!!!
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3573
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:16 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
N757ST wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I’m confused why an American 737-800 can’t fly a 2500 mile route. It is the same length as a domestic transcon. AA has flown plenty of 737-800 routes that long.

Is it because a direct route requires ETOPS?


The 7400 foot long runway limits the max takeoff weight.


Should use an A321 or A321neo. Should not have any problems with the runway at MTOW and the range with the correct number of ACT.

edit: The 737-800 should actually not have a TOW limitation on a 7400 feet, 2250 m runway.


B6 actually is waiting until April to start JFK-GEO, using the A321neo, likely for that reason. The fuel stop was likely because the flight could not reach GEO without losing their alternate. The A321neo (non-LR) has a range of about 3400-3500 nmi (with 2 aux-tanks in the ACF configuration). I'd be surprised if B6 didn't go with two ACTs...but how many ACTs are in their A21N, which B6 is using to open up longer routes?
 
OB1504
Posts: 3962
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:31 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I’m confused why an American 737-800 can’t fly a 2500 mile route. It is the same length as a domestic transcon. AA has flown plenty of 737-800 routes that long.

Is it because a direct route requires ETOPS?

Looking at the flight track, most of it is over the water, so I don't think that would be it. Looking at the range chart of a 737-800, if you're at maximum zero fuel weight, you can only fly about 2,000 nautical miles if you're at maximum take-off weight. You'd need to take 5,000 pounds off of the zero fuel weight in order to fly 2,500 miles.
]


Jfk-GEO is 2200nm, which is the same length as MIA-SFO. That is a route that AA has flown 737-800s for years. 2600sm is not an issue normally for the 737-800


Even MIA-SFO requires a fuel stop on occasion.
 
Rossiya747
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:56 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:53 pm

F27500 wrote:
Rossiya747 wrote:
Wait isn't Dynamic going to start the flight from JFK-GEO?



Yea .. they'll last for about 45 minutes.


I agree. Maybe they should stick to ACMI.
223 319 320 321 332 333 346 388 734 737 738 739 38M 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 77W 788 789 208 CRJ2 E145 E190 UA DL AA WN AC CM 4O AV 2K FI DY D8 SK LH EI FR U2 IB OS LX BA VS BT PS MS SA SW QR EY HY AI 9W TG SQ MH AK D7 QZ BR NH CA QF MI LV/IB VY AL
 
Rossiya747
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:56 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:56 pm

OB1504 wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
Looking at the flight track, most of it is over the water, so I don't think that would be it. Looking at the range chart of a 737-800, if you're at maximum zero fuel weight, you can only fly about 2,000 nautical miles if you're at maximum take-off weight. You'd need to take 5,000 pounds off of the zero fuel weight in order to fly 2,500 miles.
]


Jfk-GEO is 2200nm, which is the same length as MIA-SFO. That is a route that AA has flown 737-800s for years. 2600sm is not an issue normally for the 737-800


Even MIA-SFO requires a fuel stop on occasion.


Until recently Norwegian flew SWF-DUB, SWF-SNN, SWF-BFS, SWF-BGO, and SWF-BGO with no problems in occasionally 737-800. When I did DUB-SWF a few years ago in a 737-800 it was full.
223 319 320 321 332 333 346 388 734 737 738 739 38M 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 77W 788 789 208 CRJ2 E145 E190 UA DL AA WN AC CM 4O AV 2K FI DY D8 SK LH EI FR U2 IB OS LX BA VS BT PS MS SA SW QR EY HY AI 9W TG SQ MH AK D7 QZ BR NH CA QF MI LV/IB VY AL
 
baje427
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:34 pm

Rossiya747 wrote:
OB1504 wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Jfk-GEO is 2200nm, which is the same length as MIA-SFO. That is a route that AA has flown 737-800s for years. 2600sm is not an issue normally for the 737-800


Even MIA-SFO requires a fuel stop on occasion.


Until recently Norwegian flew SWF-DUB, SWF-SNN, SWF-BFS, SWF-BGO, and SWF-BGO with no problems in occasionally 737-800. When I did DUB-SWF a few years ago in a 737-800 it was full.

You are underestimating how heavy the bags on a flight like this would be.
 
RodFarva
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 6:06 pm

AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Wed Dec 25, 2019 10:31 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
I'd be surprised if B6 didn't go with two ACTs...but how many ACTs are in their A21N, which B6 is using to open up longer routes?


One.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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