If they just get 5 to 10 additional slots at LGA for Florida stuff, they can probably fit their operation at MAT still. I would assume they end up with more than that since Vasu had said they will pull 50 seaters from NYC and allow JetBlue to use the slots AND gates they don't need. It seems silly for JetBlue to run a split operation at LGA between MAT and CTB, but they've put some resources into making MAT their home. I could see them putting shuttle flights at MAT and the rest of stuff like Florida flights at CTB where there is more seating, amenities and connection opportunities.

Daily year round routes that I could see AA dropping out of LGA. Not saying it would make sense for B6 to actually add all or even most of them. Among top non-Florida LGA markets, AA does not have scheduled in DEN/IAH/MSY.
CLE - All E40 station and they still managed to be the lowest fare carrier here. Not a great combination. I see AA dropping both LGA/JFK
CVG - Another All E40 station where they were the lowest fare carrier. Only 2 flights a day scheduled in, easy drop.
IND - Just 2 flights with a E40 + E75. DL dominates here and AA is the lowest fare carrier
YYZ/YUL - all E40s to Canada. Cross border traffic will be down for a while and still dominated by Canadian carriers. They were never competitive here.
And then there are stuff like CAK/CHO/CAE/SDF/MEM/RIC/ROA/PWM where it seems very likely for them to drop since those are all E40 markets with probably not enough demand post covid to justify service. There are other routes that I think they will keep around but will see fewer flights as they upgauge from E40/E75 up to more efficient aircraft. Just based on the effect of eliminating E40s and lower post-COIVD demand, I think AA is going to be cutting 40 to 50 flights. So if AA wants to stay relevant in NYC through JetBlue partnership, it could transfer up to 40 slots to JetBlue. We will see.

tphuang wrote:

I think BNA would've been a great place for them to build up if WN had like a 60 flight station and with little desire to grow further than that. But it looks like they have pretty big plans there and it's hard to see how JetBlue could possibly compete with them in that market. That's a real shame, because it is the type of growing market that everyone should be interested. I could see a 15 to 20 flight station at BNA. Anything beyond that would be a real bloodbath for them.

True, BNA can’t support two large bases, but I now question just how committed WN is to BNA. Their refusal to open a base there and there continued insistence on growing ATL speaks volumes. I’d much rather have B6 frankly because not only is their product slightly better, they would provide feed for long haul flights in the future. Anyway, I do hope they at least someday launch BNA-MCO, even though it will be a bloodbath.

BNAMealer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I think BNA would've been a great place for them to build up if WN had like a 60 flight station and with little desire to grow further than that. But it looks like they have pretty big plans there and it's hard to see how JetBlue could possibly compete with them in that market. That's a real shame, because it is the type of growing market that everyone should be interested. I could see a 15 to 20 flight station at BNA. Anything beyond that would be a real bloodbath for them.

True, BNA can’t support two large bases, but I now question just how committed WN is to BNA. Their refusal to open a base there and there continued insistence on growing ATL speaks volumes. I’d much rather have B6 frankly because not only is their product slightly better, they would provide feed for long haul flights in the future. Anyway, I do hope they at least someday launch BNA-MCO, even though it will be a bloodbath.

That slightly better B6 product is null and void due to their horrible on time performance.

It would appear that the current state of the industry has also helped B6 in ATL. As per airport guides, B6 has now consolidated to the E concourse. North and South end( E32 & E2), but it's a major improvement from previously gates scattered in D, E & F concourses.

tphuang wrote:

I don't think SNA is that important. I'd imagine they start by trying 1x JFK and 1x BOS. Maybe they will do a couple of eat coast turns on top of that.

Quite a few less seats on an A220 (especially with mint which should do well from SNA) than on an A320. Also with the Disney traffic, SNA is much more convenient.

Regardless, other than the united to EWR, none of these airports are currently served from SNA and there's tons of demand (in normal times). With the AA partnership (think of all the AA ff's in the MIA area), I could easily see them absolutely crushing it here able to offer more frequencies on popular routes that others can't fly nonstop.

bpat777 wrote:

That slightly better B6 product is null and void due to their horrible on time performance.

Hard to argue with this, but its mostly a self inflicted wound that they can choose to fix at any time. They run their fleet and schedule WAY too hot.

tphuang wrote:

If they just get 5 to 10 additional slots at LGA for Florida stuff, they can probably fit their operation at MAT still. I would assume they end up with more than that since Vasu had said they will pull 50 seaters from NYC and allow JetBlue to use the slots AND gates they don't need. It seems silly for JetBlue to run a split operation at LGA between MAT and CTB, but they've put some resources into making MAT their home. I could see them putting shuttle flights at MAT and the rest of stuff like Florida flights at CTB where there is more seating, amenities and connection opportunities.

Regarding splitting the LGA operation: I don't have an opinion either way on whether they would do that or not, but I read something a month or two back that said the MAT costs them ~$500,000 per month to operate. I'm not sure that's viable for only a small shuttle operation.

bpat777 wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I think BNA would've been a great place for them to build up if WN had like a 60 flight station and with little desire to grow further than that. But it looks like they have pretty big plans there and it's hard to see how JetBlue could possibly compete with them in that market. That's a real shame, because it is the type of growing market that everyone should be interested. I could see a 15 to 20 flight station at BNA. Anything beyond that would be a real bloodbath for them.

True, BNA can’t support two large bases, but I now question just how committed WN is to BNA. Their refusal to open a base there and there continued insistence on growing ATL speaks volumes. I’d much rather have B6 frankly because not only is their product slightly better, they would provide feed for long haul flights in the future. Anyway, I do hope they at least someday launch BNA-MCO, even though it will be a bloodbath.

That slightly better B6 product is null and void due to their horrible on time performance.

This isnt 3 years ago. Their ontime performance is fine. Certainly not a factor now

trueblew wrote:

tphuang wrote:

If they just get 5 to 10 additional slots at LGA for Florida stuff, they can probably fit their operation at MAT still. I would assume they end up with more than that since Vasu had said they will pull 50 seaters from NYC and allow JetBlue to use the slots AND gates they don't need. It seems silly for JetBlue to run a split operation at LGA between MAT and CTB, but they've put some resources into making MAT their home. I could see them putting shuttle flights at MAT and the rest of stuff like Florida flights at CTB where there is more seating, amenities and connection opportunities.

Regarding splitting the LGA operation: I don't have an opinion either way on whether they would do that or not, but I read something a month or two back that said the MAT costs them ~$500,000 per month to operate. I'm not sure that's viable for only a small shuttle operation.

They have 6 gates in MAT. They use 5. Gate 1 and 2 are problems as they have no hold area.

Truly, it is a 4.5 gate terminal for airbuses.

That said, they can go up to 30 or so flights there. They have 16 or so slots now.

How many more slots are they really getting from AA?

tphuang wrote:

STT757 wrote:

Austin, Nashville and Raleigh all probably have large amount AA frequent flyers. Something B6 could tap into if their partnership with AA grows.

Sure, as AA exists JFK-AUS/BNA/RDU, JetBlue will be able to add more flight there. They can capture some of the AA ff that on BOS-AUS/BNA/RDU that have been connecting on AA so far.

They talk about entering new markets with AA partnership.

I keep looking at STL/IND/CMH and see a much easier path from JFK/BOS if they can use AA partnership to grab some of the point of sale on the other end where AA have some ff.

I can't speak for the others, but CMH could be a good target given current events; word was WN was dropping CMH-BOS and, if AA yielded CMH-JFK and/or LGA to B6 to be their de facto American Eagle carrier, B6 would only have to deal with DL on both and would offer a superior product.

It helps that AA (under normal circumstances), is typically the second-biggest carrier at CMH.

tphuang wrote:

CVG - Another All E40 station where they were the lowest fare carrier. Only 2 flights a day scheduled in, easy drop.

I agree that B6 can probably make JFK-CVG nonstop work once demand for domestic air travel returns if AA drops NYC-CVG nonstop service as F9 has also already dropped LGA-CVG nonstop service.

Here were the numbers for LGA-CVG and JFK-CVG on MQ (Envoy/American Eagle) and F9 (Frontier) in 2019:
LGA-CVG on F9 - 62950 passengers, 71676 seats, 87.83% load factor
LGA-CVG on MQ - 42380 passengers, 55388 seats, 76.51% load factor
JFK-CVG on MQ - 24768 passengers, 31378 seats, 78.93% load factor
LGA/JFK-CVG on F9 and MQ combined in the May 2019 - October 2019 time period - 94445 passengers, 109726 seats, 86.07% load factor, average of 257 passengers per direction per day

B6 adding BOS-CVG nonstop service is also a possibility with DL not currently having any nonstop competition on the BOS-CVG route.

AA has the contract with Procter and Gamble for NYC-CVG so it's not going anywhere. P&G is the only reason they ever challenged Delta's monopoly in the market.

usflyer msp wrote:

AA has the contract with Procter and Gamble for NYC-CVG so it's not going anywhere. P&G is the only reason they ever challenged Delta's monopoly in the market.

While I agree that AA will probably continue to serve CVG nonstop from NYC due to the P&G corporate contract, B6 might be able to make JFK-CVG nonstop service work once demand for domestic air travel returns with F9 no longer serving CVG nonstop from LGA.

I am surprised that AA has the P&G corporate contract for NYC-CVG, even with the DL hub at LGA, the former DL CVG hub, and significant DL FF bases in both NYC and CVG.

speedbird2263 wrote:

It would appear that the current state of the industry has also helped B6 in ATL. As per airport guides, B6 has now consolidated to the E concourse. North and South end( E32 & E2), but it's a major improvement from previously gates scattered in D, E & F concourses.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Flights still operate out of both E2 and D3. As an example, for tomorrow 8/13 5 flights are scheduled, 4 will use E2, but 719/720 (JFK) will be stuck at D3. Maybe AA will be willing to donate their D gates

wv399 wrote:

speedbird2263 wrote:

It would appear that the current state of the industry has also helped B6 in ATL. As per airport guides, B6 has now consolidated to the E concourse. North and South end( E32 & E2), but it's a major improvement from previously gates scattered in D, E & F concourses.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Flights still operate out of both E2 and D3. As an example, for tomorrow 8/13 5 flights are scheduled, 4 will use E2, but 719/720 (JFK) will be stuck at D3. Maybe AA will be willing to donate their D gates

I stand corrected. The airport guide update doesn’t indicate that D gates are still regularly being used, an erroneous omission most likely. Like you said it’s quite unfortunate that the concourses are still split.

speedbird2263 wrote:

wv399 wrote:

speedbird2263 wrote:

It would appear that the current state of the industry has also helped B6 in ATL. As per airport guides, B6 has now consolidated to the E concourse. North and South end( E32 & E2), but it's a major improvement from previously gates scattered in D, E & F concourses.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Flights still operate out of both E2 and D3. As an example, for tomorrow 8/13 5 flights are scheduled, 4 will use E2, but 719/720 (JFK) will be stuck at D3. Maybe AA will be willing to donate their D gates

I stand corrected. The airport guide update doesn’t indicate that D gates are still regularly being used, an erroneous omission most likely. Like you said it’s quite unfortunate that the concourses are still split.

Now would be a great time to shut D down and renovate it to match all of the older concourses.

Should we expect more September cuts tonight?

Interesting thread on A321XLR where someone posted that a really high premium configured XLR (110 pax) could have a range of 4700 nm. First, let's take a look at how they can get to such a premium config.

Just looking at their exisitng configs, the all-core A321CEO has 4 bathrooms with some galley space. The all-core A321NEO has 4 bathroom + pantry area with some galley space. The mint config has 4 bathrooms, 1 pantry area, more galley space + 1 closet and 33 inch Y seating vs 32 inch.

I'd imagine for 8+ hour flight, they'd want to start off with the mint config spacing since they would probably need 2 dedicated bathrooms for J cabin, more galley space for meal service and 33 inch Y seating. The mint config was converted from all core config that had 42 Y+ seat at 37/41 inch and 148 Y seat at 33 inch (32 rows altogether). If we assume that by adapting 1-1 all-aisle access seating in business cabin, it would resulting in a losing a little more than 3 Y seat per J seating. Then, you could have 30 J seating (takes up about 15 Y rows) + 16 and half Y/Y+ rows (half row used for 1 pantry) -> approximately 129 seats. In this config, all of the Y+ rows would probably have to be reduced to Y to provide some additional space for J cabin + pantry. Let's say we create a PE cabin of 2x2 seating (similar to domestic F) of 3 rows, that would take less than 4 rows of 4 Y seating. So creating a mini PE cabin of 12 seats would sacrifice 24 Y seats with some space left over to provide a couple of rows. of Y+ seating for exit rows. So we'd get about 115 seats -> 30J (with 1 being used for crew resting), 12 PE and 74 Y/Y+.

Now taking a look at how far they can go from their focus cities with 4500 nm range.

Taking a look out of JFK.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JFK-TLV%3B ... =wls&DU=mi
Basically, they got all of continental Europe with this including ATH. TLV is still too far. HND is definitely too far. If they want to break DL monopoly into Africa, LOS would be almost within range. And to South America, GRU is within range and EZE probably is too (since no atlantic wind to worry about)

Covers all of europe out of BOS + GRU. Don't think they would look for any place outside of this range.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4700nm%40BOS&MS=wls&DU=mi

Taking a look out of FLL
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=FLL-LHR%3B ... =wls&DU=mi
This looks even more impressive. They would not only have all the major markets out of South America covered, but also 3 of the largest markets to Europe(London, Madrid and MIlan). I can't really think of what other markets you'd need to serve from South Florida.

Taking a look out of LAX
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LAX-LHR%3B ... =wls&DU=mi
So this is where things might not work. London, Tokyo and Paris are all barely out of range. Major Brazilian cities are out of range. If we tried 4700 nm, they'd barely be within range.

Now, I don't think they will try to use this out of LAX. However, it does seem like the initial order of 13 XLR could be expanded to really help their FLL operation. And if XLR has another range boost by second half of 2020s, they could try JFK-TLV and LAX-LON. They might never need widebodies if A321 series keep expanding in range.

Would B6 try LON or anything South American from EWR?

tphuang wrote:

If they want to break DL monopoly into Africa...

Ahhhhhhh!

There are several African carriers serving USA-Africa. There are several European carriers offering substantial one-stop networks much-of-USA to much of Africa. (DOJ merger criteria look at connections as well as non-stops.) AA and UA certainly have the fleets to be able to fly USA-Africa non-stop (they simply choose not to). DL's few non-stops ATL/JFK to the continent of Africa do not grant DL a monopoly in the educated sense of the word.

MIflyer12 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

If they want to break DL monopoly into Africa...

Ahhhhhhh!

There are several African carriers serving USA-Africa. There are several European carriers offering substantial one-stop networks much-of-USA to much of Africa. (DOJ merger criteria look at connections as well as non-stops.) AA and UA certainly have the fleets to be able to fly USA-Africa non-stop (they simply choose not to). DL's few non-stops ATL/JFK to the continent of Africa do not grant DL a monopoly in the educated sense of the word.

I meant out of jfk by us airlines. They don’t really compete against African ones.

tphuang wrote:

Interesting thread on A321XLR where someone posted that a really high premium configured XLR (110 pax) could have a range of 4700 nm. First, let's take a look at how they can get to such a premium config.

Just looking at their exisitng configs, the all-core A321CEO has 4 bathrooms with some galley space. The all-core A321NEO has 4 bathroom + pantry area with some galley space. The mint config has 4 bathrooms, 1 pantry area, more galley space + 1 closet and 33 inch Y seating vs 32 inch.

I'd imagine for 8+ hour flight, they'd want to start off with the mint config spacing since they would probably need 2 dedicated bathrooms for J cabin, more galley space for meal service and 33 inch Y seating. The mint config was converted from all core config that had 42 Y+ seat at 37/41 inch and 148 Y seat at 33 inch (32 rows altogether). If we assume that by adapting 1-1 all-aisle access seating in business cabin, it would resulting in a losing a little more than 3 Y seat per J seating. Then, you could have 30 J seating (takes up about 15 Y rows) + 16 and half Y/Y+ rows (half row used for 1 pantry) -> approximately 129 seats. In this config, all of the Y+ rows would probably have to be reduced to Y to provide some additional space for J cabin + pantry. Let's say we create a PE cabin of 2x2 seating (similar to domestic F) of 3 rows, that would take less than 4 rows of 4 Y seating. So creating a mini PE cabin of 12 seats would sacrifice 24 Y seats with some space left over to provide a couple of rows. of Y+ seating for exit rows. So we'd get about 115 seats -> 30J (with 1 being used for crew resting), 12 PE and 74 Y/Y+.

Now taking a look at how far they can go from their focus cities with 4500 nm range.

Taking a look out of JFK.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JFK-TLV%3B ... =wls&DU=mi
Basically, they got all of continental Europe with this including ATH. TLV is still too far. HND is definitely too far. If they want to break DL monopoly into Africa, LOS would be almost within range. And to South America, GRU is within range and EZE probably is too (since no atlantic wind to worry about)

Covers all of europe out of BOS + GRU. Don't think they would look for any place outside of this range.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4700nm%40BOS&MS=wls&DU=mi

Taking a look out of FLL
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=FLL-LHR%3B ... =wls&DU=mi
This looks even more impressive. They would not only have all the major markets out of South America covered, but also 3 of the largest markets to Europe(London, Madrid and MIlan). I can't really think of what other markets you'd need to serve from South Florida.

Taking a look out of LAX
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LAX-LHR%3B ... =wls&DU=mi
So this is where things might not work. London, Tokyo and Paris are all barely out of range. Major Brazilian cities are out of range. If we tried 4700 nm, they'd barely be within range.

Now, I don't think they will try to use this out of LAX. However, it does seem like the initial order of 13 XLR could be expanded to really help their FLL operation. And if XLR has another range boost by second half of 2020s, they could try JFK-TLV and LAX-LON. They might never need widebodies if A321 series keep expanding in range.

I'll ask the obvious question? Who wants to fly 10-11 hours on a narrowbody aircraft? Especially when there are plenty of competitors with wide-bodies? I don't. Not to mention, an A321 would struggle greatly to carry all the baggage on Brazilian and African routes. Heck, they are regularly packed out on routes like PAP.

100 seater XLR just to stretch a few hundred nm vs the regular XLR with a mixed cabin? I can’t see many long routes (4000nm-ish) with such a high Premium demand. The only place I could see a 100 seat premium cabin working would be NYC-LHR, but they don’t need massive range for that.

Even if they go with a 32 seat J cabin and Y/Y+ cabin other than that, it would still be a 125 seat config. If they go for a 28 seat J cabin, it would be closer to at 135 seat config. That will cut the range a little bit. Out of FLL, that will still allow them to hit every major market aside from MXP. Out of BOS, they will be able to reach every major European market. It's only JFK that still has major market outside of the range. A321XLR will be a major game changer for an airline like JetBlue. I'd also love to see what A220XLR can do.

I'll ask the obvious question? Who wants to fly 10-11 hours on a narrowbody aircraft? Especially when there are plenty of competitors with wide-bodies? I don't. Not to mention, an A321 would struggle greatly to carry all the baggage on Brazilian and African routes. Heck, they are regularly packed out on routes like PAP.

Aside from cabin pressure, what really is the difference between narrowbody vs widebody seating? Most of my flights are > 5 hours in air time and I would have no issue with 1 to 1 all aisle access J seating. And I would prefer 18 inch wide seating in Y over 10 across on 777 or 9 across on 787.

I'm sure Airbus will work to fix some of that issue on XLR, since it's built for longer haul flights. How much baggage do you think 125 to 135 config will use up? Airbus published their figures with much more densely packed configs than that.

Where are all the meals going to fit on a 11 hour 321xlr flight?

Or trash for that matter. Trash becomes a real issue on transcons in the reconfigured aircraft already, and thats without meals in economy.

CobaltScar wrote:

Where are all the meals going to fit on a 11 hour 321xlr flight?

Or trash for that matter. Trash becomes a real issue on transcons in the reconfigured aircraft already, and thats without meals in economy.

Might as well add in crew rest areas as well.

CobaltScar wrote:

Where are all the meals going to fit on a 11 hour 321xlr flight?

Or trash for that matter. Trash becomes a real issue on transcons in the reconfigured aircraft already, and thats without meals in economy.

Keep in mind that you will have fewer passengers also. Also keep in mind that as Airbus is dedicating resources to XLR, a lot of new product designs will be produced to utilize spaces in A321XLR more efficiently for long haul purpose. You don't really need to provide enough space for 200 people's luggages anymore. That makes a difference.

You would need a larger galley area, 1 additional bathroom for 8+ hour XLR flight. 2 bathroom + 2 FAs dedicated for a 30 seat J cabin should be sufficient. 3 more bathrooms + 3 more FAs for 95 to 100 seat Y/Y+ cabin should be sufficient.

And I would imagine, at least 1 seat in the J cabin would be blocked off for crew rest. That's partly why I think they will got with something close to a 30J seat premium cabin.

Don’t forget a very important issue, ETOPS certification. Not if they receive it but rather how many minutes they get approved and how that will affect flight planning.
Speaking of flight planning, alternates will factor in to the range as well.

Does the p&g contract really matter? I am sure they get some more sales from it, but it's not a game changer if I had to guess. It could just be preferred benefits and money back for the company? My company has lots of these but all it means is we can book economy plus seats (some routes) and less review questions asking why you booked that flight if it sees cheaper flights. The company gets some $$ back at EOY. We can book any flight and I feel like most companies employees just book the best for their schedule or cheapest regardless of this. In our booking engine they are just shown as preferred with a star. This isn't 1990 I feel like corporate domestic contracts are not worth much and most employees don't even care or notice. A.net absolutely over values these. Yes still good to have and AA gets a few more sales from it, but I don't think they fly this route soely for procter and gamble

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Does the p&g contract really matter? I am sure they get some more sales from it, but it's not a game changer if I had to guess. It could just be preferred benefits and money back for the company? My company has lots of these but all it means is we can book economy plus seats (some routes) and less review questions asking why you booked that flight if it sees cheaper flights. The company gets some $$ back at EOY. We can book any flight and I feel like most companies employees just book the best for their schedule or cheapest regardless of this. In our booking engine they are just shown as preferred with a star. This isn't 1990 I feel like corporate domestic contracts are not worth much and most employees don't even care or notice. A.net absolutely over values these. Yes still good to have and AA gets a few more sales from it, but I don't think they fly this route soely for procter and gamble

Airlines will fly routes almost entirely for one company/industry, but in this scenario the P&G "contract" means nothing, as I'm 99.9% sure DL also has a "contract" on this route. P&G is a minuscule portion of AA's corporate travel base anyway, given their measly presence in CVG.

It seems like there is a lack of understanding on a.net of how corporate contracts work

Midwestindy wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Does the p&g contract really matter? I am sure they get some more sales from it, but it's not a game changer if I had to guess. It could just be preferred benefits and money back for the company? My company has lots of these but all it means is we can book economy plus seats (some routes) and less review questions asking why you booked that flight if it sees cheaper flights. The company gets some $$ back at EOY. We can book any flight and I feel like most companies employees just book the best for their schedule or cheapest regardless of this. In our booking engine they are just shown as preferred with a star. This isn't 1990 I feel like corporate domestic contracts are not worth much and most employees don't even care or notice. A.net absolutely over values these. Yes still good to have and AA gets a few more sales from it, but I don't think they fly this route soely for procter and gamble

Airlines will fly routes almost entirely for one company/industry, but in this scenario the P&G "contract" means nothing, as I'm 99.9% sure DL also has a "contract" on this route. P&G is a minuscule portion of AA's corporate travel base anyway, given their measly presence in CVG.

It seems like there is a lack of understanding on a.net of how corporate contracts work

P&G HQ is in CVG but most of their sales/marketing work is done out of NYC. P&G is largest advertiser in the world so they do a ton of travelling. AA actually probably loses money on NYC-CVG by itself but the route means AA also gets the P&G staff buying C-class tickets to GRU and LHR. DL does have the contract for CVG based P&G staff but AA has the contract for the NYC-based P&G staff.

tphuang wrote:

Even if they go with a 32 seat J cabin and Y/Y+ cabin other than that, it would still be a 125 seat config. If they go for a 28 seat J cabin, it would be closer to at 135 seat config. That will cut the range a little bit. Out of FLL, that will still allow them to hit every major market aside from MXP. Out of BOS, they will be able to reach every major European market. It's only JFK that still has major market outside of the range. A321XLR will be a major game changer for an airline like JetBlue. I'd also love to see what A220XLR can do.

I'll ask the obvious question? Who wants to fly 10-11 hours on a narrowbody aircraft? Especially when there are plenty of competitors with wide-bodies? I don't. Not to mention, an A321 would struggle greatly to carry all the baggage on Brazilian and African routes. Heck, they are regularly packed out on routes like PAP.

Aside from cabin pressure, what really is the difference between narrowbody vs widebody seating? Most of my flights are > 5 hours in air time and I would have no issue with 1 to 1 all aisle access J seating. And I would prefer 18 inch wide seating in Y over 10 across on 777 or 9 across on 787.

I'm sure Airbus will work to fix some of that issue on XLR, since it's built for longer haul flights. How much baggage do you think 125 to 135 config will use up? Airbus published their figures with much more densely packed configs than that.

Its largely psychological but you feel much less like you are in a narrow tube in a widebody. Why should a customer choose a B6 A321 over another carriers widebody?

As for the baggage, I don't think you have seen how much baggage people check to places like LOS. DL has a four bag per person limit and lot of Nigerians get mad about that. Unlike alot destinations, Nigerians will happily pay the excess baggage charges but they want to take all the baggage that they can. I have personally seen one Nigerian family of five check 26 bags.

tphuang wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

Where are all the meals going to fit on a 11 hour 321xlr flight?

Or trash for that matter. Trash becomes a real issue on transcons in the reconfigured aircraft already, and thats without meals in economy.

Keep in mind that you will have fewer passengers also. Also keep in mind that as Airbus is dedicating resources to XLR, a lot of new product designs will be produced to utilize spaces in A321XLR more efficiently for long haul purpose. You don't really need to provide enough space for 200 people's luggages anymore. That makes a difference.

You would need a larger galley area, 1 additional bathroom for 8+ hour XLR flight. 2 bathroom + 2 FAs dedicated for a 30 seat J cabin should be sufficient. 3 more bathrooms + 3 more FAs for 95 to 100 seat Y/Y+ cabin should be sufficient.

And I would imagine, at least 1 seat in the J cabin would be blocked off for crew rest. That's partly why I think they will got with something close to a 30J seat premium cabin.

No way will there be 3 FAs for a 100 seat coach, you got the wrong airline!

usflyer msp wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Even if they go with a 32 seat J cabin and Y/Y+ cabin other than that, it would still be a 125 seat config. If they go for a 28 seat J cabin, it would be closer to at 135 seat config. That will cut the range a little bit. Out of FLL, that will still allow them to hit every major market aside from MXP. Out of BOS, they will be able to reach every major European market. It's only JFK that still has major market outside of the range. A321XLR will be a major game changer for an airline like JetBlue. I'd also love to see what A220XLR can do.

I'll ask the obvious question? Who wants to fly 10-11 hours on a narrowbody aircraft? Especially when there are plenty of competitors with wide-bodies? I don't. Not to mention, an A321 would struggle greatly to carry all the baggage on Brazilian and African routes. Heck, they are regularly packed out on routes like PAP.

Aside from cabin pressure, what really is the difference between narrowbody vs widebody seating? Most of my flights are > 5 hours in air time and I would have no issue with 1 to 1 all aisle access J seating. And I would prefer 18 inch wide seating in Y over 10 across on 777 or 9 across on 787.

I'm sure Airbus will work to fix some of that issue on XLR, since it's built for longer haul flights. How much baggage do you think 125 to 135 config will use up? Airbus published their figures with much more densely packed configs than that.

Its largely psychological but you feel much less like you are in a narrow tube in a widebody. Why should a customer choose a B6 A321 over another carriers widebody?

As for the baggage, I don't think you have seen how much baggage people check to places like LOS. DL has a four bag per person limit and lot of Nigerians get mad about that. Unlike alot destinations, Nigerians will happily pay the excess baggage charges but they want to take all the baggage that they can. I have personally seen one Nigerian family of five check 26 bags.

If the same frequency could be maintained with a widebody vs. a narrowbody, your question of "why should a customer choose" the A321 would be valid. The lower cost per flight of the A321 will allow either:
1. More frequency
2. New P2P (JFK to about anywhere within A321xWB range with JetBlue's feed)

I read the same arguments when JetBlue started A320 coast to coast flights. But by flying a common type, JetBlue was able to fly 3 flights per day (versus 2) that dramatically improved their economics. I would often fly US West Coast to US East Coast on a redeye as it saves me a vacation day at the cost of a little sleep. A longer flight... more hours of sleep. I would imaging JetBlue will fly the A321xLRs rather intensely.

I happily fly TCON on narrowbodies. I haven't flown a widebody coast to coast in decades (and I have flown up front, not always, but enough). I haven't flown to Mexico in a widebody... ever.

The A321xLR is going to allow narrowbody airlines to go into new markets for a fraction of the cost of transitioning to widebodies. Frontier, JetBlue, and Indigo are starting. I fully expect EasyJet, WizzAir, and others to later order the A321xLR when the premium is reduced (which requires maturation of the manufacturing of the much more complicated arrangements of the xLR).

The long haul recovery isn't expected until a year after A321xLR entry into service. If an airline can return a widebody to a leasor now and acquire a set of A321xLRs by the time demand recovers, they will be ahead in their fleet planning.

Passengers book a flight by seat type and perception of service. As JetBlue's mint has been popular enough to have 34 Mint equipped A321s in their fleet, I would imagine that number would climb as they add JFK and Boston across the pond or FLL to South America (probably a few LAX flights, but I would expect only a trivial addition to cities already served by FLL). Heck, one small engine PiP and the A321xLR could fly FLL to London.

The A321xLR brings narrow body economics to mid range routes. Think back to all the discussions about long haul A320 or 737 flying. It happened.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Even if they go with a 32 seat J cabin and Y/Y+ cabin other than that, it would still be a 125 seat config. If they go for a 28 seat J cabin, it would be closer to at 135 seat config. That will cut the range a little bit. Out of FLL, that will still allow them to hit every major market aside from MXP. Out of BOS, they will be able to reach every major European market. It's only JFK that still has major market outside of the range. A321XLR will be a major game changer for an airline like JetBlue. I'd also love to see what A220XLR can do.


Aside from cabin pressure, what really is the difference between narrowbody vs widebody seating? Most of my flights are > 5 hours in air time and I would have no issue with 1 to 1 all aisle access J seating. And I would prefer 18 inch wide seating in Y over 10 across on 777 or 9 across on 787.

I'm sure Airbus will work to fix some of that issue on XLR, since it's built for longer haul flights. How much baggage do you think 125 to 135 config will use up? Airbus published their figures with much more densely packed configs than that.

Its largely psychological but you feel much less like you are in a narrow tube in a widebody. Why should a customer choose a B6 A321 over another carriers widebody?

As for the baggage, I don't think you have seen how much baggage people check to places like LOS. DL has a four bag per person limit and lot of Nigerians get mad about that. Unlike alot destinations, Nigerians will happily pay the excess baggage charges but they want to take all the baggage that they can. I have personally seen one Nigerian family of five check 26 bags.

If the same frequency could be maintained with a widebody vs. a narrowbody, your question of "why should a customer choose" the A321 would be valid. The lower cost per flight of the A321 will allow either:
1. More frequency
2. New P2P (JFK to about anywhere within A321xWB range with JetBlue's feed)

I read the same arguments when JetBlue started A320 coast to coast flights. But by flying a common type, JetBlue was able to fly 3 flights per day (versus 2) that dramatically improved their economics. I would often fly US West Coast to US East Coast on a redeye as it saves me a vacation day at the cost of a little sleep. A longer flight... more hours of sleep. I would imaging JetBlue will fly the A321xLRs rather intensely.

I happily fly TCON on narrowbodies. I haven't flown a widebody coast to coast in decades (and I have flown up front, not always, but enough). I haven't flown to Mexico in a widebody... ever.

The A321xLR is going to allow narrowbody airlines to go into new markets for a fraction of the cost of transitioning to widebodies. Frontier, JetBlue, and Indigo are starting. I fully expect EasyJet, WizzAir, and others to later order the A321xLR when the premium is reduced (which requires maturation of the manufacturing of the much more complicated arrangements of the xLR).

The long haul recovery isn't expected until a year after A321xLR entry into service. If an airline can return a widebody to a leasor now and acquire a set of A321xLRs by the time demand recovers, they will be ahead in their fleet planning.

Passengers book a flight by seat type and perception of service. As JetBlue's mint has been popular enough to have 34 Mint equipped A321s in their fleet, I would imagine that number would climb as they add JFK and Boston across the pond or FLL to South America (probably a few LAX flights, but I would expect only a trivial addition to cities already served by FLL). Heck, one small engine PiP and the A321xLR could fly FLL to London.

The A321xLR brings narrow body economics to mid range routes. Think back to all the discussions about long haul A320 or 737 flying. It happened.

Lightsaber

Except popular airports in Europe and Latin America have slot controls so B6 cannot just easily add frequency at useful times like they did domestically.

usflyer msp wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Does the p&g contract really matter? I am sure they get some more sales from it, but it's not a game changer if I had to guess. It could just be preferred benefits and money back for the company? My company has lots of these but all it means is we can book economy plus seats (some routes) and less review questions asking why you booked that flight if it sees cheaper flights. The company gets some $$ back at EOY. We can book any flight and I feel like most companies employees just book the best for their schedule or cheapest regardless of this. In our booking engine they are just shown as preferred with a star. This isn't 1990 I feel like corporate domestic contracts are not worth much and most employees don't even care or notice. A.net absolutely over values these. Yes still good to have and AA gets a few more sales from it, but I don't think they fly this route soely for procter and gamble

Airlines will fly routes almost entirely for one company/industry, but in this scenario the P&G "contract" means nothing, as I'm 99.9% sure DL also has a "contract" on this route. P&G is a minuscule portion of AA's corporate travel base anyway, given their measly presence in CVG.

It seems like there is a lack of understanding on a.net of how corporate contracts work

P&G HQ is in CVG but most of their sales/marketing work is done out of NYC. P&G is largest advertiser in the world so they do a ton of travelling. AA actually probably loses money on NYC-CVG by itself but the route means AA also gets the P&G staff buying C-class tickets to GRU and LHR. DL does have the contract for CVG based P&G staff but AA has the contract for the NYC-based P&G staff.

This is incorrect, most of their sales/marketing is not done out of NYC, I had a project involving P&G's sales team a few years back.

There is no "DL has the contract for CVG," "AA has the contract for NYC," that's not how corporate contracts work

Midwestindy wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Airlines will fly routes almost entirely for one company/industry, but in this scenario the P&G "contract" means nothing, as I'm 99.9% sure DL also has a "contract" on this route. P&G is a minuscule portion of AA's corporate travel base anyway, given their measly presence in CVG.

It seems like there is a lack of understanding on a.net of how corporate contracts work

P&G HQ is in CVG but most of their sales/marketing work is done out of NYC. P&G is largest advertiser in the world so they do a ton of travelling. AA actually probably loses money on NYC-CVG by itself but the route means AA also gets the P&G staff buying C-class tickets to GRU and LHR. DL does have the contract for CVG based P&G staff but AA has the contract for the NYC-based P&G staff.

This is incorrect, most of their sales/marketing is not done out of NYC, I had a project involving P&G's sales team a few years back.

There is no "DL has the contract for CVG," "AA has the contract for NYC," that's not how corporate contracts work

I disagree. I know people that work with their advertising contracts and they regularly complained pre-COVID that about having to fly AA and their tiny planes to CVG. If they could find a reason to justify flying Delta, they would.

CobaltScar wrote:

tphuang wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

Where are all the meals going to fit on a 11 hour 321xlr flight?

Or trash for that matter. Trash becomes a real issue on transcons in the reconfigured aircraft already, and thats without meals in economy.

Keep in mind that you will have fewer passengers also. Also keep in mind that as Airbus is dedicating resources to XLR, a lot of new product designs will be produced to utilize spaces in A321XLR more efficiently for long haul purpose. You don't really need to provide enough space for 200 people's luggages anymore. That makes a difference.

You would need a larger galley area, 1 additional bathroom for 8+ hour XLR flight. 2 bathroom + 2 FAs dedicated for a 30 seat J cabin should be sufficient. 3 more bathrooms + 3 more FAs for 95 to 100 seat Y/Y+ cabin should be sufficient.

And I would imagine, at least 1 seat in the J cabin would be blocked off for crew rest. That's partly why I think they will got with something close to a 30J seat premium cabin.

No way will there be 3 FAs for a 100 seat coach, you got the wrong airline!

well, it won't actually be 3 FAs for 100 seat coach. 1 of the FAs will probably be spending most of the time in J cabin also. The got basically 1 FA dedicated to 16J mint cabin with a second one helping if I understand correctly. For a 30 seat J cabin, you will need up to 3 FAs to serve.

usflyer msp wrote:

Its largely psychological but you feel much less like you are in a narrow tube in a widebody. Why should a customer choose a B6 A321 over another carriers widebody?

As for the baggage, I don't think you have seen how much baggage people check to places like LOS. DL has a four bag per person limit and lot of Nigerians get mad about that. Unlike alot destinations, Nigerians will happily pay the excess baggage charges but they want to take all the baggage that they can. I have personally seen one Nigerian family of five check 26 bags.

Because people love JetBlue in the northeast and the product is really good. I have no hesitation flying narrow body across the Atlantic ocean. To start off, it's 1 hour extra in flight time to London from Boston vs SFO. Do you think people are magically going to dismiss narrowbody over the 1 additional hour of flight time? I've also actually flown on a 757 from EWR to ORY on La Compagnie. The food was really bad and 757 noise level is high. But I still really enjoyed my flight experience. If they didn't get eliminated, I would've glad tried that service again.

I've done plenty of A321T on JFK to SFO/LAX and also 767/777 on JFK-Europe. None of the issues I had on A321T vs 777 were related to being narrowbody aircraft. If you make it reverse herringbone product with all-aisle access and better food service and better cabin pressure, it would be as good as 777. All of which should be addressed on A321XLR. People care about all-aisle access and perceived real estate, food service and IFE. The first 2 allow them to sleep more comfortably and the latter ones allow them to enjoy their time while awake.

Going for 200 pax to 130 pax means each pax can carry 50% more baggages. I doubt it's going to be an issue. Those VFR flights to GEO and GYE are really heavily loaded with baggages and they have no problem carrying them with A321NEO.

usflyer msp wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

If the same frequency could be maintained with a widebody vs. a narrowbody, your question of "why should a customer choose" the A321 would be valid. The lower cost per flight of the A321 will allow either:
1. More frequency
2. New P2P (JFK to about anywhere within A321xWB range with JetBlue's feed)

I read the same arguments when JetBlue started A320 coast to coast flights. But by flying a common type, JetBlue was able to fly 3 flights per day (versus 2) that dramatically improved their economics. I would often fly US West Coast to US East Coast on a redeye as it saves me a vacation day at the cost of a little sleep. A longer flight... more hours of sleep. I would imaging JetBlue will fly the A321xLRs rather intensely.

I happily fly TCON on narrowbodies. I haven't flown a widebody coast to coast in decades (and I have flown up front, not always, but enough). I haven't flown to Mexico in a widebody... ever.

The A321xLR is going to allow narrowbody airlines to go into new markets for a fraction of the cost of transitioning to widebodies. Frontier, JetBlue, and Indigo are starting. I fully expect EasyJet, WizzAir, and others to later order the A321xLR when the premium is reduced (which requires maturation of the manufacturing of the much more complicated arrangements of the xLR).

The long haul recovery isn't expected until a year after A321xLR entry into service. If an airline can return a widebody to a leasor now and acquire a set of A321xLRs by the time demand recovers, they will be ahead in their fleet planning.

Passengers book a flight by seat type and perception of service. As JetBlue's mint has been popular enough to have 34 Mint equipped A321s in their fleet, I would imagine that number would climb as they add JFK and Boston across the pond or FLL to South America (probably a few LAX flights, but I would expect only a trivial addition to cities already served by FLL). Heck, one small engine PiP and the A321xLR could fly FLL to London.

The A321xLR brings narrow body economics to mid range routes. Think back to all the discussions about long haul A320 or 737 flying. It happened.

Lightsaber

Except popular airports in Europe and Latin America have slot controls so B6 cannot just easily add frequency at useful times like they did domestically.

We are in the middle of a pandemic. Slots will be a lot easier to obtain coming out of this. They are going to start next summer based on their current delivery schedules. Just think about how many airlines have already filed for bankruptcy.

Narrowbody aircraft will soon take over a lot of the thinner TATL routes. There is a reason UA and AA also put in huge XLR orders. They all expect that to be the case. Widebodies will become non-competitive outside of those large trunk routes where hub carriers carry through a lot of cargo and connection flow.

It really comes down to how aggressive JetBlue wants to be. The 26 LR/XLR they have on the order will allow them to cover much Europe out of JFK/BOS. If they have ambitions at FLL and south america, an additional order of 10 XLR will allow them to do FLL-GRU/GIG/EZE/LON/MAD + JFK-GRU/LIM.

tphuang wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Keep in mind that you will have fewer passengers also. Also keep in mind that as Airbus is dedicating resources to XLR, a lot of new product designs will be produced to utilize spaces in A321XLR more efficiently for long haul purpose. You don't really need to provide enough space for 200 people's luggages anymore. That makes a difference.

You would need a larger galley area, 1 additional bathroom for 8+ hour XLR flight. 2 bathroom + 2 FAs dedicated for a 30 seat J cabin should be sufficient. 3 more bathrooms + 3 more FAs for 95 to 100 seat Y/Y+ cabin should be sufficient.

And I would imagine, at least 1 seat in the J cabin would be blocked off for crew rest. That's partly why I think they will got with something close to a 30J seat premium cabin.

No way will there be 3 FAs for a 100 seat coach, you got the wrong airline!

well, it won't actually be 3 FAs for 100 seat coach. 1 of the FAs will probably be spending most of the time in J cabin also. The got basically 1 FA dedicated to 16J mint cabin with a second one helping if I understand correctly. For a 30 seat J cabin, you will need up to 3 FAs to serve.

usflyer msp wrote:

Its largely psychological but you feel much less like you are in a narrow tube in a widebody. Why should a customer choose a B6 A321 over another carriers widebody?

As for the baggage, I don't think you have seen how much baggage people check to places like LOS. DL has a four bag per person limit and lot of Nigerians get mad about that. Unlike alot destinations, Nigerians will happily pay the excess baggage charges but they want to take all the baggage that they can. I have personally seen one Nigerian family of five check 26 bags.

Because people love JetBlue in the northeast and the product is really good. I have no hesitation flying narrow body across the Atlantic ocean. To start off, it's 1 hour extra in flight time to London from Boston vs SFO. Do you think people are magically going to dismiss narrowbody over the 1 additional hour of flight time? I've also actually flown on a 757 from EWR to ORY on La Compagnie. The food was really bad and 757 noise level is high. But I still really enjoyed my flight experience. If they didn't get eliminated, I would've glad tried that service again.

I've done plenty of A321T on JFK to SFO/LAX and also 767/777 on JFK-Europe. None of the issues I had on A321T vs 777 were related to being narrowbody aircraft. If you make it reverse herringbone product with all-aisle access and better food service and better cabin pressure, it would be as good as 777. All of which should be addressed on A321XLR. People care about all-aisle access and perceived real estate, food service and IFE. The first 2 allow them to sleep more comfortably and the latter ones allow them to enjoy their time while awake.

Going for 200 pax to 130 pax means each pax can carry 50% more baggages. I doubt it's going to be an issue. Those VFR flights to GEO and GYE are really heavily loaded with baggages and they have no problem carrying them with A321NEO.

usflyer msp wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

If the same frequency could be maintained with a widebody vs. a narrowbody, your question of "why should a customer choose" the A321 would be valid. The lower cost per flight of the A321 will allow either:
1. More frequency
2. New P2P (JFK to about anywhere within A321xWB range with JetBlue's feed)

I read the same arguments when JetBlue started A320 coast to coast flights. But by flying a common type, JetBlue was able to fly 3 flights per day (versus 2) that dramatically improved their economics. I would often fly US West Coast to US East Coast on a redeye as it saves me a vacation day at the cost of a little sleep. A longer flight... more hours of sleep. I would imaging JetBlue will fly the A321xLRs rather intensely.

I happily fly TCON on narrowbodies. I haven't flown a widebody coast to coast in decades (and I have flown up front, not always, but enough). I haven't flown to Mexico in a widebody... ever.

The A321xLR is going to allow narrowbody airlines to go into new markets for a fraction of the cost of transitioning to widebodies. Frontier, JetBlue, and Indigo are starting. I fully expect EasyJet, WizzAir, and others to later order the A321xLR when the premium is reduced (which requires maturation of the manufacturing of the much more complicated arrangements of the xLR).

The long haul recovery isn't expected until a year after A321xLR entry into service. If an airline can return a widebody to a leasor now and acquire a set of A321xLRs by the time demand recovers, they will be ahead in their fleet planning.

Passengers book a flight by seat type and perception of service. As JetBlue's mint has been popular enough to have 34 Mint equipped A321s in their fleet, I would imagine that number would climb as they add JFK and Boston across the pond or FLL to South America (probably a few LAX flights, but I would expect only a trivial addition to cities already served by FLL). Heck, one small engine PiP and the A321xLR could fly FLL to London.

The A321xLR brings narrow body economics to mid range routes. Think back to all the discussions about long haul A320 or 737 flying. It happened.

Lightsaber

Except popular airports in Europe and Latin America have slot controls so B6 cannot just easily add frequency at useful times like they did domestically.

We are in the middle of a pandemic. Slots will be a lot easier to obtain coming out of this. They are going to start next summer based on their current delivery schedules. Just think about how many airlines have already filed for bankruptcy.

Narrowbody aircraft will soon take over a lot of the thinner TATL routes. There is a reason UA and AA also put in huge XLR orders. They all expect that to be the case. Widebodies will become non-competitive outside of those large trunk routes where hub carriers carry through a lot of cargo and connection flow.

It really comes down to how aggressive JetBlue wants to be. The 26 LR/XLR they have on the order will allow them to cover much Europe out of JFK/BOS. If they have ambitions at FLL and south america, an additional order of 10 XLR will allow them to do FLL-GRU/GIG/EZE/LON/MAD + JFK-GRU/LIM.

Slots are easy now but it is likely to be a different story when the XLR's start arriving in 2023. Not one route we have talked about in this thread would I consider thin. Thin is something like JFK-SNN or OPO not JFK-GRU.

usflyer msp wrote:

tphuang wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

No way will there be 3 FAs for a 100 seat coach, you got the wrong airline!

well, it won't actually be 3 FAs for 100 seat coach. 1 of the FAs will probably be spending most of the time in J cabin also. The got basically 1 FA dedicated to 16J mint cabin with a second one helping if I understand correctly. For a 30 seat J cabin, you will need up to 3 FAs to serve.

usflyer msp wrote:

Its largely psychological but you feel much less like you are in a narrow tube in a widebody. Why should a customer choose a B6 A321 over another carriers widebody?

As for the baggage, I don't think you have seen how much baggage people check to places like LOS. DL has a four bag per person limit and lot of Nigerians get mad about that. Unlike alot destinations, Nigerians will happily pay the excess baggage charges but they want to take all the baggage that they can. I have personally seen one Nigerian family of five check 26 bags.

Because people love JetBlue in the northeast and the product is really good. I have no hesitation flying narrow body across the Atlantic ocean. To start off, it's 1 hour extra in flight time to London from Boston vs SFO. Do you think people are magically going to dismiss narrowbody over the 1 additional hour of flight time? I've also actually flown on a 757 from EWR to ORY on La Compagnie. The food was really bad and 757 noise level is high. But I still really enjoyed my flight experience. If they didn't get eliminated, I would've glad tried that service again.

I've done plenty of A321T on JFK to SFO/LAX and also 767/777 on JFK-Europe. None of the issues I had on A321T vs 777 were related to being narrowbody aircraft. If you make it reverse herringbone product with all-aisle access and better food service and better cabin pressure, it would be as good as 777. All of which should be addressed on A321XLR. People care about all-aisle access and perceived real estate, food service and IFE. The first 2 allow them to sleep more comfortably and the latter ones allow them to enjoy their time while awake.

Going for 200 pax to 130 pax means each pax can carry 50% more baggages. I doubt it's going to be an issue. Those VFR flights to GEO and GYE are really heavily loaded with baggages and they have no problem carrying them with A321NEO.

usflyer msp wrote:

Except popular airports in Europe and Latin America have slot controls so B6 cannot just easily add frequency at useful times like they did domestically.

We are in the middle of a pandemic. Slots will be a lot easier to obtain coming out of this. They are going to start next summer based on their current delivery schedules. Just think about how many airlines have already filed for bankruptcy.

Narrowbody aircraft will soon take over a lot of the thinner TATL routes. There is a reason UA and AA also put in huge XLR orders. They all expect that to be the case. Widebodies will become non-competitive outside of those large trunk routes where hub carriers carry through a lot of cargo and connection flow.

It really comes down to how aggressive JetBlue wants to be. The 26 LR/XLR they have on the order will allow them to cover much Europe out of JFK/BOS. If they have ambitions at FLL and south america, an additional order of 10 XLR will allow them to do FLL-GRU/GIG/EZE/LON/MAD + JFK-GRU/LIM.

Slots are easy now but it is likely to be a different story when the XLR's start arriving in 2023. Not one route we have talked about in this thread would I consider thin. Thin is something like JFK-SNN or OPO not JFK-GRU.

The hardest to obtain slot ones like LON or AMS are all reachable with LRs. And I fully expect that to happen in 21 and 22.

Why would they need to only enter thin routes? The A321 economics is so much better than widebodies that they will be competitive whereever they enter. Imagine only having to sell 30 J and 100 Y /Y+ seat per flight instead of having to sell 100 J/F seats + 175 Y/PE seats on JFK-LHR. Even with depressed demand next summer, they should be able to fill that up. There is a reason narrowbody aircraft now dominates JFK-LAX/SFO.

And for south america, the cost of doing 1 R/T of A321 on FLL-GRU would be so much lower than keeping 1 and half or 2 77W for 1 R/T of MIA-GRU that it would justify not having optimal flight times.

People keep making it sound like JetBlue is taking such a large risk. The reality is if TATL out of JFK/BOS don't work outside of a few markets, they can utilize A321LR/XLR on stuff like JFK-ANC/HNL/LIM/GIG/GRU/SCL, BOS-PDL/RAK/GRU or any number of FLL to south america stuff. There is no shortage of places they can try a longer ranged A321 that doesn't add much additional operating cost.

More planes are scheduled to fly to long term storage in Arizona, two just this morning. I'd be surprised if we don't see some further drawdown of the schedule soon.

trueblew wrote:

More planes are scheduled to fly to long term storage in Arizona, two just this morning. I'd be surprised if we don't see some further drawdown of the schedule soon.

They are ridiculously overstaffed right now, and they are not furloughing anyone. October is going to be a very slow month and this holiday season the slowest probably in history.

tphuang wrote:

3 FAs helping upfront

Thats the thing though, 3 FAs working out of one galley on a narrowbody is super inefficient. They will spend most of their time waiting for the others to get out of the way in the small galley or in the one aisle.

B6 also is not paying for a extra FA that they are not required to have. There will be 4 FAs on these flights.

CobaltScar wrote:

trueblew wrote:

More planes are scheduled to fly to long term storage in Arizona, two just this morning. I'd be surprised if we don't see some further drawdown of the schedule soon.

They are ridiculously overstaffed right now, and they are not furloughing anyone. October is going to be a very slow month and this holiday season the slowest probably in history.

All airlines are overstaffed based on the CURRENT environment. JetBlue is staffed for future demand. 2,000 employees took a severance or long-term time off which sets them up for a bounce-back in demand. Not so sure why this is so difficult to understand.

tphuang wrote:

Going for 200 pax to 130 pax means each pax can carry 50% more baggages. I doubt it's going to be an issue. Those VFR flights to GEO and GYE are really heavily loaded with baggages and they have no problem carrying them with A321NEO.

Whilst you’re correct that they are indeed heavily loaded on JFK-GYE, to be fair those flights are capped. When the route launched late last year, the first week was marred with significant delays trying to fit 200 Ecuadorians and all their Christmas luggage onboard. The solution eventually incorporated a cap to fit everyone and their bags. The NEO is quite capable but has it’s limitations, the XLR and it’s planned low density configuration as you’ve noted should have nary an issue in that department.

speedbird2263 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Going for 200 pax to 130 pax means each pax can carry 50% more baggages. I doubt it's going to be an issue. Those VFR flights to GEO and GYE are really heavily loaded with baggages and they have no problem carrying them with A321NEO.

Whilst you’re correct that they are indeed heavily loaded on JFK-GYE, to be fair those flights are capped. When the route launched late last year, the first week was marred with significant delays trying to fit 200 Ecuadorians and all their Christmas luggage onboard. The solution eventually incorporated a cap to fit everyone and their bags. The NEO is quite capable but has it’s limitations, the XLR and it’s planned low density configuration as you’ve noted should have nary an issue in that department.

They never flew that route with a NEO that had the large bins as their last couple deliveries (and all future deliveries) got. I’m curious if they could fit 200 pax + their bags with large bin NEOs.

TheLunchbox wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

trueblew wrote:

More planes are scheduled to fly to long term storage in Arizona, two just this morning. I'd be surprised if we don't see some further drawdown of the schedule soon.

They are ridiculously overstaffed right now, and they are not furloughing anyone. October is going to be a very slow month and this holiday season the slowest probably in history.

All airlines are overstaffed based on the CURRENT environment. JetBlue is staffed for future demand. 2,000 employees took a severance or long-term time off which sets them up for a bounce-back in demand. Not so sure why this is so difficult to understand.

They are way overstaffed for September flying too. They called people back already and then dropped their entire schedules, with pay, due to lack of demand. And by their own admission, 2,000 is still not enough. They should of furloughed. But ok, keep dreaming about some big uptick in demand just around the corner.

JetBlue to delay London flights.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jetblue ... now-2020-8

Boof02671 wrote:

JetBlue to delay London flights.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jetblue ... now-2020-8

I thought this was public information since like April?

Yeah, it was mentioned months ago and the CEO said flights will begin later in 2021. Public knowledge ¯\_(ツ)_/¯