INFINITI329 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I'm surprised B6 doesn't consider 30 of the smaller variant. The A220-300 is too big for airports in the Cape Cod area, and would also require frequency reductions on routes within New York state typically served, pre-COVID, with the Embraer 190AR.

140 seats are overkill for some of their current E190 markets.... I was thinking they need 10-20 A221s


Pics from Jetblue's media day for the A220

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jetblue-just ... 57404.html

But if the 223 is the same cost to operate as the 190, what's the downside on a route that could support the 190?

Also, is the 221 significantly cheaper to operate vs the 223? If not, what's the upside to another aircraft type?

INFINITI329 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I'm surprised B6 doesn't consider 30 of the smaller variant. The A220-300 is too big for airports in the Cape Cod area, and would also require frequency reductions on routes within New York state typically served, pre-COVID, with the Embraer 190AR.

140 seats are overkill for some of their current E190 markets.... I was thinking they need 10-20 A221s


Pics from Jetblue's media day for the A220

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jetblue-just ... 57404.html

That makes no sense to me. If the -300 costs the same as a 190, then having the ability to fill more seats is better than having a -200 and losing that ability. It's exactly why the Max -8 has crushed the Max -7 in sales. Similar costs, much more flexibility.

- Will the A220 have the stickers with the tail and name up front like on the 320?
- Does any of you know if the 220 will go between BOS/PVD and RSW in the next 1-2 yrs? (those are my usual routes)
- Would the A220-300 be too big (capacity-wise) for BTV, PWM, ORH, HYA, ACK, and MVY, considering some of these airports might have capacity limits?

Thanks!

luv2cattlecall wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I'm surprised B6 doesn't consider 30 of the smaller variant. The A220-300 is too big for airports in the Cape Cod area, and would also require frequency reductions on routes within New York state typically served, pre-COVID, with the Embraer 190AR.

140 seats are overkill for some of their current E190 markets.... I was thinking they need 10-20 A221s


Pics from Jetblue's media day for the A220

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jetblue-just ... 57404.html

But if the 223 is the same cost to operate as the 190, what's the downside on a route that could support the 190?

Also, is the 221 significantly cheaper to operate vs the 223? If not, what's the upside to another aircraft type?

This needs to be emphasized. The A223 flies a route with 40 additional seats than the E-190. If a route was economically viable with an E-190, it is just as viable with the A223, with extra seats available on popular day (e.g., spring break, Thanksgiving).

JetBlue has a competent yield management team. They will make it work. Some destinations might see reduced frequency, which nicely opens up gates space for new routes at BOS.

If any airport cannot handle the A223, they have other issues and it is time to drop the route when the E190s are retired. However, if the airport handles A319s or 73Gs, they can handle A223.


Lightsaber

JBcapecott wrote:

- Will the A220 have the stickers with the tail and name up front like on the 320?
- Does any of you know if the 220 will go between BOS/PVD and RSW in the next 1-2 yrs? (those are my usual routes)
- Would the A220-300 be too big (capacity-wise) for BTV, PWM, ORH, HYA, ACK, and MVY, considering some of these airports might have capacity limits?

Thanks!

The earliest a220-300 will do quite a bit of bos to Florida I think. Although, long term they are more likely to be put on more competitive bos routes long term.
Maybe they will get some 100 for those small airports.

N766UA wrote:

That makes no sense to me. If the -300 costs the same as a 190, then having the ability to fill more seats is better than having a -200 and losing that ability. It's exactly why the Max -8 has crushed the Max -7 in sales. Similar costs, much more flexibility.

There's purchasing cost.

There's operating cost. The extra seats may be cheap but they're not FREE.

His reference was short-field take-off performance, at which the -100 is notably superior to the -300.

If B6 should find they don't need a decent sub-fleet of -100s (IMHO, 15 or more) they should just block seats on -300s or avoid the short-field destinations. It's just scheduling hassle and a route to poor utilization having a very small sub-fleet (see Delta's dumping of ten 737-700s even they they still have 200+ 738s and 739s). Avoid Sabena Disease - a few of this, a few of that, no coherence, many pilot training groups for effectively a fairly small fleet.

There's not much difference in cost between the 223 and 221. There's a difference of about 20 seats but identical maintenance/crew costs. The weight is very similar too.

The only real use of the 221 is its short field performance, for example Swiss using it to LCY where a 223 isn't certified. It's quite telling too that Swiss reduced its order book for the 221. Originally they were supposed to receive only the 221 variant (30 units), then swapped 10 to the 223, then another 5 and a subsequent 5. Final count was supposed to be 10 221s and 20 223s yet they never took delivery of the last 221 and swapped that to the 223. I'm pretty sure, if Swiss had to order them again they wouldn't bother with the 221s and would use their regional partner Helvetic to fly to LCY.

Delta is the only exception of recent orders going for the 221. All other carriers (amongst them AF, AC, B6) have all gone for the 223. I'd be extremely surprised to see any of those carriers order a 221.

Some possible destinations that I think B6 could send some A221s would be HYA, ACK, MVY, HHH, EYW, EGE, JAC, TGU, and I’m sure some other Caribbean airports that other airlines serve.

I mention the airports on the cape not for performance reasons due to the short flights but for possible size limitations with the 223 on the ramp that the 221 I wouldn’t think would have. The other airports mentioned could probably easily be served with the 223 (except maybe HHH) but with the 221 it would offer B6 better performance opportunities.

I'm wondering if B6 will use the A 220 for Miami flights? I'm guessing besides NY and Boston B6 will have short haul flights out of MIA like the Caribbean, and other Florida cities.

I don't see B6 ordering A221s anytime soon. The incrementally lower cost to acquire/operate just isn't worth 20ish % fewer seats and reduced flexibility/commonality in the system. If performance is an issue, seats can be blocked on an A223 and the flight can still operate almost as (or more depending on number of seats blocked) as an A221. Most of the routes with these short runways are short flights and have low fuel requirements anyway (EYW being a notable exception for flights to the northeast), so the takeoff weights will likely generally be low even with a full boat. Blocking 20-30 seats on an A223 still wouldn't be a big enough revenue hit to justify a smaller subfleet in my opinion.

Also, I'm not so sure the 190s will all be leaving the fleet depending on how the AA partnership works out. They will apparently be quite busy with the partnership. I think it will come down to maintenance contracts for all 60, and lease renewal terms for the 30 leased ones and resale value of the 30 owned ones. If the numbers make sense to keep them longer than 2025, it may happen, and the need for an A221 (if the "need" even exists with a fleet of A223s) would be nil until at least then.

tphuang wrote:

JBcapecott wrote:

- Will the A220 have the stickers with the tail and name up front like on the 320?
- Does any of you know if the 220 will go between BOS/PVD and RSW in the next 1-2 yrs? (those are my usual routes)
- Would the A220-300 be too big (capacity-wise) for BTV, PWM, ORH, HYA, ACK, and MVY, considering some of these airports might have capacity limits?

Thanks!

The earliest a220-300 will do quite a bit of bos to Florida I think. Although, long term they are more likely to be put on more competitive bos routes long term.
Maybe they will get some 100 for those small airports.

So will this mean airports like ATL will see them about 4 to 5x a day

I really think B6 is going to see some very positive results with this aircraft! Once they get the teething issues in order, I can bet B6 will order a bunch more when things recover. I really love the layout B6 has gone with.

Do you think it's possible for B6 to convert them with Mint service for lower density routes?

I wonder if the intra-California and West Coast routes will return with the A220 in the next 2-3 years.

F9Animal wrote:

I really think B6 is going to see some very positive results with this aircraft! Once they get the teething issues in order, I can bet B6 will order a bunch more when things recover. I really love the layout B6 has gone with.

Do you think it's possible for B6 to convert them with Mint service for lower density routes?

Agree. They still have 50 options...I’d bet they exercise all of them.

Re A220 mint, it’s possible, but not very probable, at least at this point. I think there are too many other non mint routes they want it on first that either don’t exist yet, or exist on the 320 (or even the 190) but really would be better with the 220. Apparently they are constantly evaluating it though, as well as a new traditional domestic first type product. They’ve also discussed (doesn’t sound like very seriously, although the CEO jokes about it on occasion) using the -100 in an all business/mint layout for LCY. I think that is more of a pipe dream than a legitimate discussion though.

Chasensfo wrote:

I wonder if the intra-California and West Coast routes will return with the A220 in the next 2-3 years.

I think that’s a fairly good prediction.

Love the avatar lol.

When shall the A220 start flying BOS-MCO?

Cboyle wrote:

When shall the A220 start flying BOS-MCO?

Officially: “Summer”
Proving runs are supposed to be in late March/April, so probably a little bit after that, assuming no big issues.

I wonder how much longer they have to keep around the 320s. They seem like a uneconomical middle ground right now.

CobaltScar wrote:

I wonder how much longer they have to keep around the 320s. They seem like a uneconomical middle ground right now.

They are not going anywhere anytime soon. They still seat 22 more than the A223s- B6 are not going to leave a 60 seat gap between the A223 and A321.

lightsaber wrote:

luv2cattlecall wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

140 seats are overkill for some of their current E190 markets.... I was thinking they need 10-20 A221s


Pics from Jetblue's media day for the A220

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jetblue-just ... 57404.html

But if the 223 is the same cost to operate as the 190, what's the downside on a route that could support the 190?

Also, is the 221 significantly cheaper to operate vs the 223? If not, what's the upside to another aircraft type?

This needs to be emphasized. The A223 flies a route with 40 additional seats than the E-190. If a route was economically viable with an E-190, it is just as viable with the A223, with extra seats available on popular day (e.g., spring break, Thanksgiving).

JetBlue has a competent yield management team. They will make it work. Some destinations might see reduced frequency, which nicely opens up gates space for new routes at BOS.

If any airport cannot handle the A223, they have other issues and it is time to drop the route when the E190s are retired. However, if the airport handles A319s or 73Gs, they can handle A223.


Lightsaber

The issue would be that at some airports now, the Embraer 190 is the largest plane the airport currently sees...with JetBlue being the only mainline carrier there with the E190 while everyone else there is a regional carrier. It is unlikely that a BCS3 would be approved to operate into MVY, ACK, or HYA. EYW is an airport where the BCS1 could also allow direct to the Northeast to be opened up (currently, the longest mainline route out of EYW is to DFW, and the largest plane EYW currently sees is the A319). Except for ACK, the runways are between 5,000 and 5,500 feet long (ACK is 6,300 feet). Northeast regional flying aside from those airfields could be on the BCS3, with a mix of BCS1/BCS3 flying. I do see A320s being retired, given how much hours B6 racks up on planes.

Polot wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

I wonder how much longer they have to keep around the 320s. They seem like a uneconomical middle ground right now.

They are not going anywhere anytime soon. They still seat 22 more than the A223s- B6 are not going to leave a 60 seat gap between the A223 and A321.

The problem is hours, especially for those numbered in the low 500s. They are around 80,000 hours, meaning B6 will have a decision to make in a few years on their next D check, when they could be closing in on 90,000 hours at age 24. I would be surprised if some orders weren't converted to the A20N to replace older A320s.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Polot wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

I wonder how much longer they have to keep around the 320s. They seem like a uneconomical middle ground right now.

They are not going anywhere anytime soon. They still seat 22 more than the A223s- B6 are not going to leave a 60 seat gap between the A223 and A321.

The problem is hours, especially for those numbered in the low 500s. They are around 80,000 hours, meaning B6 will have a decision to make in a few years on their next D check, when they could be closing in on 90,000 hours at age 24. I would be surprised if some orders weren't converted to the A20N to replace older A320s.

Well yes the fleet size may change and older planes retired, but as a whole B6 will still be operating the A320 for some time. It is still by far their largest fleet type. Whether B6 eventually orders the A320neo or not probably depends on when A225 eventually becomes available.

CobaltScar wrote:

I wonder how much longer they have to keep around the 320s. They seem like a uneconomical middle ground right now.

To add to the previous replies, I think the economics with 162 seats will be a little better than with 150 for the remaining life in the 320s. Couple that with the large expense they just had/are having with the cabin refresh - I don’t see all A320s leaving the fleet anytime soon, with the exception of the few that another poster identified as ones that won’t receive the mod. Along those lines, the old ones that are high cycle, high hour, will be retired/returned as they age/time/cycle out. But the bulk of the A320 fleet has plenty of life left in it. The average age of them is 15 years. I’d expect them to slowly be retired out starting in a few years as they hit FH/FC limits, and/or heavy maintenance requirements that no longer remain economically feasible. A lot of the oldest ones are leased...I’d also imagine whether or not the leases get renewed will largely depend on the economics of the deals.

Long term, I don’t think there will be new A320s/A320NEOs to replace retired A320s at B6, unless maybe there was an A320NEO+ with better economics. I’d bank on a future of A220s, especially if a -500 ever comes out, and A321NEOs, even as A320s leave the fleet. The lost 150/162 seat capacity will be backfilled with 140 & 200 seaters, or maybe a 150-160 seat A225. But again, there are 130 A320s, most of which have a lot of life remaining.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

luv2cattlecall wrote:

But if the 223 is the same cost to operate as the 190, what's the downside on a route that could support the 190?

Also, is the 221 significantly cheaper to operate vs the 223? If not, what's the upside to another aircraft type?

This needs to be emphasized. The A223 flies a route with 40 additional seats than the E-190. If a route was economically viable with an E-190, it is just as viable with the A223, with extra seats available on popular day (e.g., spring break, Thanksgiving).

JetBlue has a competent yield management team. They will make it work. Some destinations might see reduced frequency, which nicely opens up gates space for new routes at BOS.

If any airport cannot handle the A223, they have other issues and it is time to drop the route when the E190s are retired. However, if the airport handles A319s or 73Gs, they can handle A223.


Lightsaber

The issue would be that at some airports now, the Embraer 190 is the largest plane the airport currently sees...with JetBlue being the only mainline carrier there with the E190 while everyone else there is a regional carrier. It is unlikely that a BCS3 would be approved to operate into MVY, ACK, or HYA. EYW is an airport where the BCS1 could also allow direct to the Northeast to be opened up (currently, the longest mainline route out of EYW is to DFW, and the largest plane EYW currently sees is the A319). Except for ACK, the runways are between 5,000 and 5,500 feet long (ACK is 6,300 feet). Northeast regional flying aside from those airfields could be on the BCS3, with a mix of BCS1/BCS3 flying. I do see A320s being retired, given how much hours B6 racks up on planes.

Polot wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

I wonder how much longer they have to keep around the 320s. They seem like a uneconomical middle ground right now.

They are not going anywhere anytime soon. They still seat 22 more than the A223s- B6 are not going to leave a 60 seat gap between the A223 and A321.

The problem is hours, especially for those numbered in the low 500s. They are around 80,000 hours, meaning B6 will have a decision to make in a few years on their next D check, when they could be closing in on 90,000 hours at age 24. I would be surprised if some orders weren't converted to the A20N to replace older A320s.

I agree with what you’ve pointed out about MVY, ACK and HYA and I think that’s what is being forgotten. Those airports just physically can’t take a A223 sized plane on their ramp (in the case of ACK) unless everything was probably blocked off on the ramp or if they expanded it and I can’t imagine those airports would want to do for 1 airline in a very seasonal market.

Other than wingspan the A221 is very similar in length to the E190 and the A223 being almost the same size as the 320.

E190 vs. A220-100
L: 118’ 11” L: 114’ 9”
W: 94’ 3” W: 115’ 1”

A220-300. vs. A320
L: 127’ 0” L: 123’ 3”
W: 115’ 1” W: 117’ 5”

Also my own thoughts if B6 were to go for the A221 I think it would also give them another excellent capacity option since not all routes will be able to always fill the capacity of the A223. Like JFK-upstate NY, High frequency business routes (yes I know covid has changed that, but it will come back in some form), and also potentially those East Coast-Ski markets like HDN, BZN, and MTJ or even JFK-RNO/ABQ.
Jetblue seems to configure their planes just slight above DLs, so if we look at DLs A221 with 109 seats I think B6 would come in with a 120 seat A221 which is a great size to have on hand for some of those thinner markets mentioned above and would allow them to keep some frequency in markets that would need it after traffic comes back while not adding a large amount of seats as would be the case with the A223.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

luv2cattlecall wrote:

But if the 223 is the same cost to operate as the 190, what's the downside on a route that could support the 190?

Also, is the 221 significantly cheaper to operate vs the 223? If not, what's the upside to another aircraft type?

This needs to be emphasized. The A223 flies a route with 40 additional seats than the E-190. If a route was economically viable with an E-190, it is just as viable with the A223, with extra seats available on popular day (e.g., spring break, Thanksgiving).

JetBlue has a competent yield management team. They will make it work. Some destinations might see reduced frequency, which nicely opens up gates space for new routes at BOS.

If any airport cannot handle the A223, they have other issues and it is time to drop the route when the E190s are retired. However, if the airport handles A319s or 73Gs, they can handle A223.


Lightsaber

The issue would be that at some airports now, the Embraer 190 is the largest plane the airport currently sees...with JetBlue being the only mainline carrier there with the E190 while everyone else there is a regional carrier. It is unlikely that a BCS3 would be approved to operate into MVY, ACK, or HYA. EYW is an airport where the BCS1 could also allow direct to the Northeast to be opened up (currently, the longest mainline route out of EYW is to DFW, and the largest plane EYW currently sees is the A319). Except for ACK, the runways are between 5,000 and 5,500 feet long (ACK is 6,300 feet). Northeast regional flying aside from those airfields could be on the BCS3, with a mix of BCS1/BCS3 flying. I do see A320s being retired, given how much hours B6 racks up on planes.

Polot wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

I wonder how much longer they have to keep around the 320s. They seem like a uneconomical middle ground right now.

They are not going anywhere anytime soon. They still seat 22 more than the A223s- B6 are not going to leave a 60 seat gap between the A223 and A321.

The problem is hours, especially for those numbered in the low 500s. They are around 80,000 hours, meaning B6 will have a decision to make in a few years on their next D check, when they could be closing in on 90,000 hours at age 24. I would be surprised if some orders weren't converted to the A20N to replace older A320s.

Let's talk limitations.
ACK has a dual wheel weight limit of 170,000 lb and a 6,300 foot runway (at MTOW, yes winds and such increase the 6,200ft runway requirement, but with 3,350nm, where is JetBlue flying from such a small airport anywhere near MTOW?) Absolutely no reason I see an issue with the A223 as the MTOW is 154,000 lb and I cannot conceive of a route that approaches MTOW for Jetblue from Nantucket. But hey, perhaps in the future, if JetBlue gets a mid-America hub, they could connect...
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/ACK/
MTOW and runway from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220

There is one and only one airport where the A221 makes a difference:
EYW has an odd dual wheel weight limit of 125,000 lb (again, the A220 has dual wheels, so that is what applies). However, you can fly A223 short distances, so if JetBlue wants more than Capeair, they'll fly the A223. I used empty weight of 81,750 lb, add 10,000 pound (fuel, crew, stuff) and 140 pax at 105kg pax is 124,163 lb. So limited to short flights, but certainly plausible on the A223. Yes, the A221 could fly further... But this is the only airport of those listed where an A221 vs. A223 has a difference in what economical missions it could fly.
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/EYW/

MVY and HYA hav a dual wheel weight limit of 108,000 lb for a double wheel boggey (A223 landing gear).
Empty weight of 81,750lb, 10,000 lb of other weight, only leaves about 8,000 lb for passengers. Ok, the A223 cannot serve there. JetBlue will have to let Cape air handle. The A221 numbers with an empty weight of 77,650lb... Add 110 pax and 10000 lb for fuel, crew, and stuff is 113,117lb. Ok, you could fly an A221 with 5,000 lb removed. Using 105kg pax, remove 22 pax or maximum of 88 passengers... I'm not seeing an economic business model for the A221 at either of these airports.
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/MVY
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/HYA

MVY and HYA are not A220 compatible due to the low weight limits for any A220. I didn't know there were 125,000 lb airport. I'm used to 28,000 lb, 50,000 lb, a bunch around 100,000 lb limit (just below to just above due to different soils with a standard WW2 runway construction style) and 170,000lb on up... (with 950,000 lb also being common as that was the FAAs "million pound runway" that couldn't quite handle a million pounds... but I digress...).

When JetBlue returns the E190s, there are 3 airports that either go Capeair or are removed from the routemap. One that stays A223.

I do a lot of system modeling. I bet JetBlue did too and already knows this. From prior discussions, my opinion is that the E190 didn't generate the expected premium and just doesn't justify its cost per flight.

EIther airports can support 140 seats (probably with some re-allocation of airport slots). A huge part of my opinion is I do system modeling for work and as a hobby. If I do a simple spreadsheet model of JetBlue's slot/Gate values at BOS and JFK, there is no way I would continue to allocate them to the E190. I am of the opinion that the E190 was quickly sent up to BOS to squat on slots (just as I am of the opinion many RJ flights are squating on slots at ORD to keep out competition). The A223 opens up so many routes we aren't discussing here that when say MVY and HYA are cut from the JetBlue routemap, those new destinations will make far more profit (or less loss) for JetBlue. I'm also of the opinion JetBlue is going to re-allocate many slots to TATL to make BOS and JFK higher yield hubs. While this has little to nothing to do with the A223, it has everything to do with replacing the E190s.

Thanks to A223 range, I expect new pilot bases (vs. E190). JetBlue has stated the E190 requires "E190 fleet requires significant investments to fly to
a 25 year useful life (late 2020s to early 2030s)" (slide 4).
"Next generation aircraft are able to deliver 25% -
30% lower direct operating cost1 per seat mile vs
E190"
"Transition owned E190s out of operating fleet starting in
2020, with leased E190s to be returned as leases expire
starting in 2023; transition scheduled to be completed by
2025 "

http://investor.jetblue.com/~/media/Fil ... update.pdf

Please see slide 6 on the A220 "expanded mission capability." That looks like an Airbus range chart created to sell the A220 to JetBlue, so there are guarantees behind that chart (unless JetBlue was silly).

The fact JetBlue is talking about reducing system costs by 5% (slide 8) tells me they have really looked into getting rid of the E190.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

This needs to be emphasized. The A223 flies a route with 40 additional seats than the E-190. If a route was economically viable with an E-190, it is just as viable with the A223, with extra seats available on popular day (e.g., spring break, Thanksgiving).

JetBlue has a competent yield management team. They will make it work. Some destinations might see reduced frequency, which nicely opens up gates space for new routes at BOS.

If any airport cannot handle the A223, they have other issues and it is time to drop the route when the E190s are retired. However, if the airport handles A319s or 73Gs, they can handle A223.


Lightsaber

The issue would be that at some airports now, the Embraer 190 is the largest plane the airport currently sees...with JetBlue being the only mainline carrier there with the E190 while everyone else there is a regional carrier. It is unlikely that a BCS3 would be approved to operate into MVY, ACK, or HYA. EYW is an airport where the BCS1 could also allow direct to the Northeast to be opened up (currently, the longest mainline route out of EYW is to DFW, and the largest plane EYW currently sees is the A319). Except for ACK, the runways are between 5,000 and 5,500 feet long (ACK is 6,300 feet). Northeast regional flying aside from those airfields could be on the BCS3, with a mix of BCS1/BCS3 flying. I do see A320s being retired, given how much hours B6 racks up on planes.

Polot wrote:

They are not going anywhere anytime soon. They still seat 22 more than the A223s- B6 are not going to leave a 60 seat gap between the A223 and A321.

The problem is hours, especially for those numbered in the low 500s. They are around 80,000 hours, meaning B6 will have a decision to make in a few years on their next D check, when they could be closing in on 90,000 hours at age 24. I would be surprised if some orders weren't converted to the A20N to replace older A320s.

Let's talk limitations.
ACK has a dual wheel weight limit of 170,000 lb and a 6,300 foot runway (at MTOW, yes winds and such increase the 6,200ft runway requirement, but with 3,350nm, where is JetBlue flying from such a small airport anywhere near MTOW?) Absolutely no reason I see an issue with the A223 as the MTOW is 154,000 lb and I cannot conceive of a route that approaches MTOW for Jetblue from Nantucket. But hey, perhaps in the future, if JetBlue gets a mid-America hub, they could connect...
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/ACK/
MTOW and runway from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220

There is one and only one airport where the A221 makes a difference:
EYW has an odd dual wheel weight limit of 125,000 lb (again, the A220 has dual wheels, so that is what applies). However, you can fly A223 short distances, so if JetBlue wants more than Capeair, they'll fly the A223. I used empty weight of 81,750 lb, add 10,000 pound (fuel, crew, stuff) and 140 pax at 105kg pax is 124,163 lb. So limited to short flights, but certainly plausible on the A223. Yes, the A221 could fly further... But this is the only airport of those listed where an A221 vs. A223 has a difference in what economical missions it could fly.
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/EYW/

MVY and HYA hav a dual wheel weight limit of 108,000 lb for a double wheel boggey (A223 landing gear).
Empty weight of 81,750lb, 10,000 lb of other weight, only leaves about 8,000 lb for passengers. Ok, the A223 cannot serve there. JetBlue will have to let Cape air handle. The A221 numbers with an empty weight of 77,650lb... Add 110 pax and 10000 lb for fuel, crew, and stuff is 113,117lb. Ok, you could fly an A221 with 5,000 lb removed. Using 105kg pax, remove 22 pax or maximum of 88 passengers... I'm not seeing an economic business model for the A221 at either of these airports.
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/MVY
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/HYA

MVY and HYA are not A220 compatible due to the low weight limits for any A220. I didn't know there were 125,000 lb airport. I'm used to 28,000 lb, 50,000 lb, a bunch around 100,000 lb limit (just below to just above due to different soils with a standard WW2 runway construction style) and 170,000lb on up... (with 950,000 lb also being common as that was the FAAs "million pound runway" that couldn't quite handle a million pounds... but I digress...).

When JetBlue returns the E190s, there are 3 airports that either go Capeair or are removed from the routemap. One that stays A223.

I do a lot of system modeling. I bet JetBlue did too and already knows this. From prior discussions, my opinion is that the E190 didn't generate the expected premium and just doesn't justify its cost per flight.

EIther airports can support 140 seats (probably with some re-allocation of airport slots). A huge part of my opinion is I do system modeling for work and as a hobby. If I do a simple spreadsheet model of JetBlue's slot/Gate values at BOS and JFK, there is no way I would continue to allocate them to the E190. I am of the opinion that the E190 was quickly sent up to BOS to squat on slots (just as I am of the opinion many RJ flights are squating on slots at ORD to keep out competition). The A223 opens up so many routes we aren't discussing here that when say MVY and HYA are cut from the JetBlue routemap, those new destinations will make far more profit (or less loss) for JetBlue. I'm also of the opinion JetBlue is going to re-allocate many slots to TATL to make BOS and JFK higher yield hubs. While this has little to nothing to do with the A223, it has everything to do with replacing the E190s.

Thanks to A223 range, I expect new pilot bases (vs. E190). JetBlue has stated the E190 requires "E190 fleet requires significant investments to fly to
a 25 year useful life (late 2020s to early 2030s)" (slide 4).
"Next generation aircraft are able to deliver 25% -
30% lower direct operating cost1 per seat mile vs
E190"
"Transition owned E190s out of operating fleet starting in
2020, with leased E190s to be returned as leases expire
starting in 2023; transition scheduled to be completed by
2025 "

http://investor.jetblue.com/~/media/Fil ... update.pdf

Please see slide 6 on the A220 "expanded mission capability." That looks like an Airbus range chart created to sell the A220 to JetBlue, so there are guarantees behind that chart (unless JetBlue was silly).

The fact JetBlue is talking about reducing system costs by 5% (slide 8) tells me they have really looked into getting rid of the E190.

Lightsaber

So will B6 have to keep the E190's or order new Embraer's to do HYA, MVY, etc? How is this weight stuff gonna be solved? Would adding a sturdier layer to the runway solve it?

They ordered the 220 to replace the 190 so No they wont order from embraer anymore.

JBcapecott wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The issue would be that at some airports now, the Embraer 190 is the largest plane the airport currently sees...with JetBlue being the only mainline carrier there with the E190 while everyone else there is a regional carrier. It is unlikely that a BCS3 would be approved to operate into MVY, ACK, or HYA. EYW is an airport where the BCS1 could also allow direct to the Northeast to be opened up (currently, the longest mainline route out of EYW is to DFW, and the largest plane EYW currently sees is the A319). Except for ACK, the runways are between 5,000 and 5,500 feet long (ACK is 6,300 feet). Northeast regional flying aside from those airfields could be on the BCS3, with a mix of BCS1/BCS3 flying. I do see A320s being retired, given how much hours B6 racks up on planes.



The problem is hours, especially for those numbered in the low 500s. They are around 80,000 hours, meaning B6 will have a decision to make in a few years on their next D check, when they could be closing in on 90,000 hours at age 24. I would be surprised if some orders weren't converted to the A20N to replace older A320s.

Let's talk limitations.
ACK has a dual wheel weight limit of 170,000 lb and a 6,300 foot runway (at MTOW, yes winds and such increase the 6,200ft runway requirement, but with 3,350nm, where is JetBlue flying from such a small airport anywhere near MTOW?) Absolutely no reason I see an issue with the A223 as the MTOW is 154,000 lb and I cannot conceive of a route that approaches MTOW for Jetblue from Nantucket. But hey, perhaps in the future, if JetBlue gets a mid-America hub, they could connect...
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/ACK/
MTOW and runway from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220

There is one and only one airport where the A221 makes a difference:
EYW has an odd dual wheel weight limit of 125,000 lb (again, the A220 has dual wheels, so that is what applies). However, you can fly A223 short distances, so if JetBlue wants more than Capeair, they'll fly the A223. I used empty weight of 81,750 lb, add 10,000 pound (fuel, crew, stuff) and 140 pax at 105kg pax is 124,163 lb. So limited to short flights, but certainly plausible on the A223. Yes, the A221 could fly further... But this is the only airport of those listed where an A221 vs. A223 has a difference in what economical missions it could fly.
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/EYW/

MVY and HYA hav a dual wheel weight limit of 108,000 lb for a double wheel boggey (A223 landing gear).
Empty weight of 81,750lb, 10,000 lb of other weight, only leaves about 8,000 lb for passengers. Ok, the A223 cannot serve there. JetBlue will have to let Cape air handle. The A221 numbers with an empty weight of 77,650lb... Add 110 pax and 10000 lb for fuel, crew, and stuff is 113,117lb. Ok, you could fly an A221 with 5,000 lb removed. Using 105kg pax, remove 22 pax or maximum of 88 passengers... I'm not seeing an economic business model for the A221 at either of these airports.
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/MVY
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/HYA

MVY and HYA are not A220 compatible due to the low weight limits for any A220. I didn't know there were 125,000 lb airport. I'm used to 28,000 lb, 50,000 lb, a bunch around 100,000 lb limit (just below to just above due to different soils with a standard WW2 runway construction style) and 170,000lb on up... (with 950,000 lb also being common as that was the FAAs "million pound runway" that couldn't quite handle a million pounds... but I digress...).

When JetBlue returns the E190s, there are 3 airports that either go Capeair or are removed from the routemap. One that stays A223.

I do a lot of system modeling. I bet JetBlue did too and already knows this. From prior discussions, my opinion is that the E190 didn't generate the expected premium and just doesn't justify its cost per flight.

EIther airports can support 140 seats (probably with some re-allocation of airport slots). A huge part of my opinion is I do system modeling for work and as a hobby. If I do a simple spreadsheet model of JetBlue's slot/Gate values at BOS and JFK, there is no way I would continue to allocate them to the E190. I am of the opinion that the E190 was quickly sent up to BOS to squat on slots (just as I am of the opinion many RJ flights are squating on slots at ORD to keep out competition). The A223 opens up so many routes we aren't discussing here that when say MVY and HYA are cut from the JetBlue routemap, those new destinations will make far more profit (or less loss) for JetBlue. I'm also of the opinion JetBlue is going to re-allocate many slots to TATL to make BOS and JFK higher yield hubs. While this has little to nothing to do with the A223, it has everything to do with replacing the E190s.

Thanks to A223 range, I expect new pilot bases (vs. E190). JetBlue has stated the E190 requires "E190 fleet requires significant investments to fly to
a 25 year useful life (late 2020s to early 2030s)" (slide 4).
"Next generation aircraft are able to deliver 25% -
30% lower direct operating cost1 per seat mile vs
E190"
"Transition owned E190s out of operating fleet starting in
2020, with leased E190s to be returned as leases expire
starting in 2023; transition scheduled to be completed by
2025 "

http://investor.jetblue.com/~/media/Fil ... update.pdf

Please see slide 6 on the A220 "expanded mission capability." That looks like an Airbus range chart created to sell the A220 to JetBlue, so there are guarantees behind that chart (unless JetBlue was silly).

The fact JetBlue is talking about reducing system costs by 5% (slide 8) tells me they have really looked into getting rid of the E190.

Lightsaber

So will B6 have to keep the E190's or order new Embraer's to do HYA, MVY, etc? How is this weight stuff gonna be solved? Would adding a sturdier layer to the runway solve it?

Nope. E190s are leaving. It's not just about the standard operating costs, the maintenance costs, supply chain costs/delays, and the ever-growing structural issues which lead to expensive and time consuming repairs need to be taken into consideration. The E190s are not worth keeping for a few token cities, it does not make sense.

I still think a small sub fleet of A220-100 makes sense. E90 will go away, but it may end up taking longer time than anyone would expect. After all, JetBlue almost never does anything on schedule. With all the additional LGA flying coming up, E90s will shortly leave their parked status. There are a couple of airports like ACK, STT, EYW, JAC and possibly weight restricted MVY that I can see them serving with A220-100. Yes, their yield on JFK-MVY is off the charts. I don't see them giving that one up. And there are some routes out of BOS/LGA where A220-100 simply works better than A220-300. If they can consistently fill 80 to 120 people per flight, it would make sense for them to use 120 seat A220-100 over 140 seat A220-300. The trip cost should still be a little lower (a little less weight and lower pilot pay scale). The purchase cost should be lower. The turn around time is faster. They can reduce seat width a little bit and have really wide aisle to allow for fast boarding/unloading

A 165 seat A220-500 would be the perfect replacement for A320. There is no way A320NEO can match its economics.

It's hard for me to see a scenario where they don't take up those 50 options. If A220-500 is available, they should order even more than that.

B6JFKH81 wrote:

JBcapecott wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Let's talk limitations.
ACK has a dual wheel weight limit of 170,000 lb and a 6,300 foot runway (at MTOW, yes winds and such increase the 6,200ft runway requirement, but with 3,350nm, where is JetBlue flying from such a small airport anywhere near MTOW?) Absolutely no reason I see an issue with the A223 as the MTOW is 154,000 lb and I cannot conceive of a route that approaches MTOW for Jetblue from Nantucket. But hey, perhaps in the future, if JetBlue gets a mid-America hub, they could connect...
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/ACK/
MTOW and runway from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220

There is one and only one airport where the A221 makes a difference:
EYW has an odd dual wheel weight limit of 125,000 lb (again, the A220 has dual wheels, so that is what applies). However, you can fly A223 short distances, so if JetBlue wants more than Capeair, they'll fly the A223. I used empty weight of 81,750 lb, add 10,000 pound (fuel, crew, stuff) and 140 pax at 105kg pax is 124,163 lb. So limited to short flights, but certainly plausible on the A223. Yes, the A221 could fly further... But this is the only airport of those listed where an A221 vs. A223 has a difference in what economical missions it could fly.
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/EYW/

MVY and HYA hav a dual wheel weight limit of 108,000 lb for a double wheel boggey (A223 landing gear).
Empty weight of 81,750lb, 10,000 lb of other weight, only leaves about 8,000 lb for passengers. Ok, the A223 cannot serve there. JetBlue will have to let Cape air handle. The A221 numbers with an empty weight of 77,650lb... Add 110 pax and 10000 lb for fuel, crew, and stuff is 113,117lb. Ok, you could fly an A221 with 5,000 lb removed. Using 105kg pax, remove 22 pax or maximum of 88 passengers... I'm not seeing an economic business model for the A221 at either of these airports.
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/MVY
https://www.airport-data.com/airport/HYA

MVY and HYA are not A220 compatible due to the low weight limits for any A220. I didn't know there were 125,000 lb airport. I'm used to 28,000 lb, 50,000 lb, a bunch around 100,000 lb limit (just below to just above due to different soils with a standard WW2 runway construction style) and 170,000lb on up... (with 950,000 lb also being common as that was the FAAs "million pound runway" that couldn't quite handle a million pounds... but I digress...).

When JetBlue returns the E190s, there are 3 airports that either go Capeair or are removed from the routemap. One that stays A223.

I do a lot of system modeling. I bet JetBlue did too and already knows this. From prior discussions, my opinion is that the E190 didn't generate the expected premium and just doesn't justify its cost per flight.

EIther airports can support 140 seats (probably with some re-allocation of airport slots). A huge part of my opinion is I do system modeling for work and as a hobby. If I do a simple spreadsheet model of JetBlue's slot/Gate values at BOS and JFK, there is no way I would continue to allocate them to the E190. I am of the opinion that the E190 was quickly sent up to BOS to squat on slots (just as I am of the opinion many RJ flights are squating on slots at ORD to keep out competition). The A223 opens up so many routes we aren't discussing here that when say MVY and HYA are cut from the JetBlue routemap, those new destinations will make far more profit (or less loss) for JetBlue. I'm also of the opinion JetBlue is going to re-allocate many slots to TATL to make BOS and JFK higher yield hubs. While this has little to nothing to do with the A223, it has everything to do with replacing the E190s.

Thanks to A223 range, I expect new pilot bases (vs. E190). JetBlue has stated the E190 requires "E190 fleet requires significant investments to fly to
a 25 year useful life (late 2020s to early 2030s)" (slide 4).
"Next generation aircraft are able to deliver 25% -
30% lower direct operating cost1 per seat mile vs
E190"
"Transition owned E190s out of operating fleet starting in
2020, with leased E190s to be returned as leases expire
starting in 2023; transition scheduled to be completed by
2025 "

http://investor.jetblue.com/~/media/Fil ... update.pdf

Please see slide 6 on the A220 "expanded mission capability." That looks like an Airbus range chart created to sell the A220 to JetBlue, so there are guarantees behind that chart (unless JetBlue was silly).

The fact JetBlue is talking about reducing system costs by 5% (slide 8) tells me they have really looked into getting rid of the E190.

Lightsaber

So will B6 have to keep the E190's or order new Embraer's to do HYA, MVY, etc? How is this weight stuff gonna be solved? Would adding a sturdier layer to the runway solve it?

Nope. E190s are leaving. It's not just about the standard operating costs, the maintenance costs, supply chain costs/delays, and the ever-growing structural issues which lead to expensive and time consuming repairs need to be taken into consideration. The E190s are not worth keeping for a few token cities, it does not make sense.

The 3 sub cities can be served by Cape Air. While JetBlue will lose the marketing of a big plane, that is a small issue (recall, 1 of the 4 has a 170,000 lb limit, as that us more than the highest A220 MTOW, it is fine).

The runways and taxiways require an upgrade to improve weight.

To others,
It is possible JetBlue would acquire a subfleet of A221s for LCY and could serve EYW. MVY and HYA are going to have to go Cape Air.

But we are focusing on 4 tiny markets.

A huge advantage is TCON range. If JetBlue flies AUS-a West Coast city and the timing is bad, they can return to any East Coast city and then the home airport where the hub-East coast-West Coast-Austin occcurs. The range of the E190 was a planning handicap for an airline that specializes in TCON. I am more excited about TCON flights from secondary JetBlue cities that four airports I personally haven't flown through.

The high costs to fuel and maintain the E-190 doomed it. My last post had a nice presentation on why JetBlue selected the A223. It unfortunately lays out why the E190s must be retired. It explains well not only why JetBlue will retire the type, but gives us insight into AC and AA too.

Breeze will take cheap and young E-jets on what looks to be a power by the hour arrangement. For low frequency flights with a small fleet of young E19x, that works. JetBlue has the misfortune of having the pathfinding E190s that are finding out all the maintenance issues first. JetBlue is not setup for that (really only Delta and Lufthansa are today, in my opinion). Due to the pathfinding maintenance (high utilization and the launch customer).

On the A223, JetBlue has the advantage of trailing a fairly high utilization operator, AirBaltic.

This is a really good snapshot. Swiss, AirBaltic, and AirCanada have all been flying all of their A220s:

https://skiesmag.com/news/airbus-a220-p ... y-turmoil/

Now, full disclosure, we know from discussion in other threads, Delta has parked a bunch of A220s.

AirCanada is flying the A220s 9 to 10.5 hours per day by that link. Their oldest A230 was delivered 23 December 2019, so it will take JetBlue a long time to catch up.

https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Air ... ve-csr.htm

AirBaltic didn't say their current utilization, but they were flying up to 18 hours per day. So I doubt JetBlue will ever catch up to a 30 November 2016 delivery.

Swiss is using during the pandemic the A220 only 4 hours a day per that link. My opinion us they are a moderate utilization airline, so JetBlue will pass them (and Delta) in A220 utilization in future years (I expect first on total hours than cycles).

I believe not taking the risk again of being the Pathfinder on an airframe drove JetBlue to the A220 (they would eventually be the E2 pathfinder due to their high utilization).

One reason I was so excited about Delta, AirFrance, and JetBlue adopting the A220 is their experience in wringing out any defects will help sell more. IMHO, Lufthansa/Swiss has done a great job, but I would bet JetBlue's order was contingent upon certain dispatch, fuel, and maintenance benchmarks being achieved. Hence why JetBlue, AirFrance, and Breeze signed Airbus contracts for negotiated PiPs (performance improvement programs) on the engine and airframe.

With dispatch finally meeting Swiss metrics (which in my opinion are strict, see link for quote), I see JetBlue making much more profit on the A220s.

It is time to say goodbye to the E-190s on the previously announced schedule.

Lightsaber

Again, I cannot see them giving up on JFK-MVY. Based on my analysis of all their domestic routes, JFK-MVY is the highest overperformer over expected yield. If they have to block at 88 seats, then they should do so. Those flights rarely fill the cabins. They just had really high fares for minimal air time.

And I think A220-100 would leave the door open for other airports they may want to enter that have runway constraints.

tphuang wrote:

Again, I cannot see them giving up on JFK-MVY. Based on my analysis of all their domestic routes, JFK-MVY is the highest overperformer over expected yield. If they have to block at 88 seats, then they should do so. Those flights rarely fill the cabins. They just had really high fares for minimal air time.

And I think A220-100 would leave the door open for other airports they may want to enter that have runway constraints.

I never said JetBlue giving up on MVY, I said Cape Air.

The yield is good. I found a round trip next week LAX to JFK so cheap, the mist expensive $257 r/t LAX to MVY: $856 to $1041, every option on Cape Air.

I think JetBlue will expand their CapeAir partnership.
Tecnam P2012 and eventually Eviation Alice (all electric aircraft). Ok, once the Cessna 402s are replaced.

Or JetBlue picks another turboprop vendor. I only see A221s for LCY and then a few more.

MVY-BOS is an ideal electric aircraft route. Think of the PR. MVY to JFK is also within a round trip of a single charge Eviation Alice (assuming it even meets close to promise range of 540nm, it has the range for 3 legs).

The more we discuss and expand information, the more I think this is an ideal Cape Air route to BOS and JFK.

I see opportunities for the A221 at JetBlue. For MVY, time to find a turboprop or RJ vendor. This looks like a perfect Saab turboprop route.

Lightsaber

Are the A223s capable of flying profitably to KEF from JetBlue east cost bases JFK,BOS to match demand on low-season and replace them with A321s when demand is high?

lightsaber wrote:

Or JetBlue picks another turboprop vendor.

The more we discuss and expand information, the more I think this is an ideal Cape Air route to BOS and JFK. For MVY, time to find a turboprop or RJ vendor. This looks like a perfect Saab turboprop route.

Lightsaber

I was thinking JSX with their 135’s or Silver/Seaborne, both of whom JetBlue has relationships with already. Frankly if they go with Seaborne they could offer seaplane service from Manhattan.

I think if B6 were to get A221's, they'd seat 120. So if you take a 120-seat A221, what would be the empty weight difference of 120 vs. 110 and how often do HYA and MVY flights sell out? Or maybe those 2 airports could make the runways sturdier - would that do the trick?

Even though the A220-300 can physically go to Nantucket, part of the charm over there is not too many people, so maybe they'd be better of with 221's. Just throwing thoughts out.

JBcapecott wrote:

I think if B6 were to get A221's, they'd seat 120. So if you take a 120-seat A221, what would be the empty weight difference of 120 vs. 110 and how often do HYA and MVY flights sell out? Or maybe those 2 airports could make the runways sturdier - would that do the trick?

Even though the A220-300 can physically go to Nantucket, part of the charm over there is not too many people, so maybe they'd be better of with 221's. Just throwing thoughts out.

Do you have any idea the capital budget required to strengthen not only a runway, but taxiways and ramp surfaces? You're deep into the 8 figures. The amount of NIMBYs in Barnstable and Dukes county alone would squash any insinuation of airport growth and development. These airports have sustained mainline jet service with the E190 for several years, and will, until at least 2025. If the 223 can't do it with a weight penalty, and the 221 hasn't been ordered, and the 190 is long since retired, the service will go to a partner airline.

Maybe we will finally see JetSuiteX deployed to the East Coast to provide some feed in some of these smaller locations. Not sure that it makes sense to order the A220-100 when the economics on the A220-300 are better in most cases. Offering double the flights to HYA and MVY using smaller, cheaper E135/145s (or maybe bigger regional airplanes) operated by JetSuiteX might be a better option if the A220-300 is too big.

I can't see them giving MVY service to CapeAir. These routes print money in summer time. I think a weight restricted 221 is the way to go here.

Also, it makes sense for them to order 221 for those BOS/LGA shuttle routes that require quick turn around times where even 120 seats per flight is too much capacity.

tphuang wrote:

I can't see them giving MVY service to CapeAir. These routes print money in summer time. I think a weight restricted 221 is the way to go here.

Also, it makes sense for them to order 221 for those BOS/LGA shuttle routes that require quick turn around times where even 120 seats per flight is too much capacity.

Would a weight restricted 120-pax 221 work for HYA and MVY? If not, JSX could get bigger planes.

So they've announced the name of the first 220. I'll let others post it since it's on an internal site but it is...interesting?

catiii wrote:

So they've announced the name of the first 220. I'll let others post it since it's on an internal site but it is...interesting?

Bombardier Blue or C-Ya Soon?

catiii wrote:

So they've announced the name of the first 220. I'll let others post it since it's on an internal site but it is...interesting?

Saw the announcement today definitely an interesting choice for sure

cpl22586 wrote:

catiii wrote:

So they've announced the name of the first 220. I'll let others post it since it's on an internal site but it is...interesting?

Saw the announcement today definitely an interesting choice for sure

any hints? When will it be released publicly?

phllax wrote:

catiii wrote:

So they've announced the name of the first 220. I'll let others post it since it's on an internal site but it is...interesting?

Bombardier Blue or C-Ya Soon?

fomax7

INFINITI329 wrote:

cpl22586 wrote:

catiii wrote:

So they've announced the name of the first 220. I'll let others post it since it's on an internal site but it is...interesting?

Saw the announcement today definitely an interesting choice for sure

any hints? When will it be released publicly?

I'm sure the airplane will be out doing proving flights soon. It'll be out there for the public to see.

Ziyulu wrote:

Is first class 2-2?

JetBlue doesn't have First Class.

lightsaber wrote:

The fact JetBlue is talking about reducing system costs by 5% (slide 8) tells me they have really looked into getting rid of the E190.

Lightsaber

The 190s aren't going anywhere for a while now.

Inaugural flight BOS-TPA on April 26

https://paxex.aero/jetblue-a220-inaugur ... paign=5308

Nice !

JetBlue A220 operating some kind of JFK-LAX test flight is diverting to LAS.

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/statu ... 51364?s=20

Part of the proving runs. A diversion is part of this process.