hbernal1 wrote:

JetBlue announced it will resume SJU-RDU and add BQN-TPA. Both start July 5th.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

Wow! 2 carriers on both RDU-SJU and TPA-BQN. I guess F9 isn't going to get Puerto Rico without a fight from B6.

not the flights I would've guessed for a million year. It does seem to me they have spare aircraft to add this when they are cutting back so much in NYC due to ATC issues.

Finally B6 deviates from the North East. Great adds.

https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-detail ... fault.aspx
so JFK-AMS starting on Aug 29th.
BOS-AMS starting on Sep 20th

tphuang wrote:

https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2023/Hallo-Amsterdam-JetBlue-Flights-from-New-York-and-Boston-to-Amsterdam-on-Sale-Today/default.aspx
so JFK-AMS starting on Aug 29th.
BOS-AMS starting on Sep 20th

The times of those slots seems ideal, no?

tphuang wrote:

https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2023/Hallo-Amsterdam-JetBlue-Flights-from-New-York-and-Boston-to-Amsterdam-on-Sale-Today/default.aspx
so JFK-AMS starting on Aug 29th.
BOS-AMS starting on Sep 20th

Much better times than the 1am departure, especially for business travelers can at least be there by lunch time. I wonder if it’s permanent or at least longer term. Knowing JetBlue they wouldn’t sell these unless it was.
BTW…did they announce bos-cdg date yet?

Abeam79 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2023/Hallo-Amsterdam-JetBlue-Flights-from-New-York-and-Boston-to-Amsterdam-on-Sale-Today/default.aspx
so JFK-AMS starting on Aug 29th.
BOS-AMS starting on Sep 20th

Much better times than the 1am departure, especially for business travelers can at least be there by lunch time. I wonder if it’s permanent or at least longer term. Knowing JetBlue they wouldn’t sell these unless it was.
BTW…did they announce bos-cdg date yet?

No, have heard nothing on Bos-cdg internally.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... #xj4y7vzkg

Looks like NYC flying will be cut by 10% this summer. Last week some of these cuts were announced, but I don't believe they amounted to 10% of their JFK/LGA/EWR schedule. I wonder what else we'll see here.

tphuang wrote:

https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2023/Hallo-Amsterdam-JetBlue-Flights-from-New-York-and-Boston-to-Amsterdam-on-Sale-Today/default.aspx
so JFK-AMS starting on Aug 29th.
BOS-AMS starting on Sep 20th

Excellent times. I wonder how B6 managed to obtain these slot pairs - all the public reporting pointed to them gaining only one slot pair, with awful timings for TATL flights.

Bos190guy wrote:

tphuang wrote:

https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2023/Hallo-Amsterdam-JetBlue-Flights-from-New-York-and-Boston-to-Amsterdam-on-Sale-Today/default.aspx
so JFK-AMS starting on Aug 29th.
BOS-AMS starting on Sep 20th

The times of those slots seems ideal, no?

Wonderful news!! The oligopolistic pricing of transatlantic travel (that is: AA/oneworld, DL/SkyTeam and UA/Star Alliance) has precluded many younger Americans from traveling overseas at all. Once travelers like us can get to Europe - anywhere and anytime is fine - we find flights *within* Europe to be incredibly reasonably priced. The hard part is simply getting there and getting home.

Any additional options (and sales!) are a most welcome change. I can't wait to head to Madrid in June, thanks to the advent of some cheap Norse flights.

SurfandSnow wrote:

Bos190guy wrote:

tphuang wrote:

https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2023/Hallo-Amsterdam-JetBlue-Flights-from-New-York-and-Boston-to-Amsterdam-on-Sale-Today/default.aspx
so JFK-AMS starting on Aug 29th.
BOS-AMS starting on Sep 20th

The times of those slots seems ideal, no?

Wonderful news!! The oligopolistic pricing of transatlantic travel (that is: AA/oneworld, DL/SkyTeam and UA/Star Alliance) has precluded many younger Americans from traveling overseas at all. Once travelers like us can get to Europe - anywhere and anytime is fine - we find flights *within* Europe to be incredibly reasonably priced. The hard part is simply getting there and getting home.

Any additional options (and sales!) are a most welcome change. I can't wait to head to Madrid in June, thanks to the advent of some cheap Norse flights.

For the masses it’s true but from cities like NYC, WAS and MIA you can find sub $500 RT fares to Europe in the winter especially January-February.

The idea that people can’t travel is quite a farce and has been for years. Even Play is offering $250-$300 RT to Europe in the winter.

Airlines are meant to meet demand. Not underprice if the demand is above and beyond.

jetbluefan1 wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-25/jetblue-to-cut-10-of-nyc-departures-this-summer-on-faa-snarls#xj4y7vzkg

Looks like NYC flying will be cut by 10% this summer. Last week some of these cuts were announced, but I don't believe they amounted to 10% of their JFK/LGA/EWR schedule. I wonder what else we'll see here.

tphuang wrote:

https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2023/Hallo-Amsterdam-JetBlue-Flights-from-New-York-and-Boston-to-Amsterdam-on-Sale-Today/default.aspx
so JFK-AMS starting on Aug 29th.
BOS-AMS starting on Sep 20th

Excellent times. I wonder how B6 managed to obtain these slot pairs - all the public reporting pointed to them gaining only one slot pair, with awful timings for TATL flights.

Maybe they complained enough and then got an exemption. Or maybe the Dutch gov't will allow more slots to be released at AMS in the coming days.

I'm actually dreading this ATC shortage issue. Really don't want to get a summer of delays here =(

Nope just notating that every time JetBlue wants into a slot controlled airport they throw an absolute tantrum to get their way. Of course UA can;t get into JFK because B6 and AA control the airport. B6 expects to go wherever they want (LHR) for free where the other legacy airlines had to buy their way in. AA bought TWA access, US bought PA access, and DL had to do it through VS. How many months did the AMS tantrum last? Waiting for JetBlue to start crying and hollering for slots into Tokyo Haneda (HND).

cv5880 wrote:

Nope just notating that every time JetBlue wants into a slot controlled airport they throw an absolute tantrum to get their way. Of course UA can;t get into JFK because B6 and AA control the airport. B6 expects to go wherever they want (LHR) for free where the other legacy airlines had to buy their way in. AA bought TWA access, US bought PA access, and DL had to do it through VS. How many months did the AMS tantrum last? Waiting for JetBlue to start crying and hollering for slots into Tokyo Haneda (HND).

I wonder why this "strategy" seems to work better for B6 than it does for the legacies. Political connections in the right places from the beginning? Schumer seems to be a big B6 supporter.

cv5880 wrote:

Nope just notating that every time JetBlue wants into a slot controlled airport they throw an absolute tantrum to get their way. Of course UA can;t get into JFK because B6 and AA control the airport. B6 expects to go wherever they want (LHR) for free where the other legacy airlines had to buy their way in. AA bought TWA access, US bought PA access, and DL had to do it through VS. How many months did the AMS tantrum last? Waiting for JetBlue to start crying and hollering for slots into Tokyo Haneda (HND).

You obviously don’t understand how open skies agreements especially the “Blue skies agreement” under KLM/Delta that gained their Joint Venture anti trust immunity. In such language that Jetblue was willing to fight the Netherlands and KLM/Delta JV by protesting with the US Government that the agreement was in violation and Jetblue should be awarded slots. It’s the same way that places like JFK that is highly slot controlled, new entrants like Norse and other new airlines are given slots. The same applies to over in Europe that airports can’t fully deny new entrants like AMS was trying to do.

United complaining about JFK is laughable since they left on their own to consolidate ops in EWR (which turned out to be a huge financial mistake by their CEO Smisek). United got awarded temporary slots during Covid but knew those would be going away.

Still we are talking about 1 slot pair with at most 266 passengers a day flying to/from AMS on jetblue vs the 4 flights a day Delta/KLM fly using 330s and 787s carrying what 5 to 6 times what jetblue could in their 321LRs.

We get it, you LOVE Delta. And seem to forget the fighting Delta/AA/United did plus the PR campaigns they did to get HND slots and saying why they deserved them over each other. Obviously PR campaigns can work for wanting slots and using political means helps too. All the airlines do it. Whether it’s gaining access or restricting it against a competitor. Did you think Delta was throwing its weight around in ATL or playing a lil tantrum game when Qatar was inaugurating it’s flying and Delta was parking A320 and 737s at the international gates to keep them occupied just a little be extra. Or delta squatting on gates when Jetblue wanted to enter ATL but then Delta used its political friends to help their side.

Don’t get why when jetblue tries to improve its brand by expanding its brand and network to places that have some of the biggest profitable routes across the Atlantic ie JFK-LHR that some people slam it as a waste or whatever. Just looking at the mint seat maps when trying to book a Mint seat on jetblue, rarely more than 4 or 5 out of the 23 MINT seats available through September. Obviously there is some demand that is choosing jetblue over the legacies for a reason.

The transatlantic routes have seen many try to take on the legacies on both sides and many have failed by using the wide body vs wide body models. With jetblue costs, it’s too much of a risk at this point to try transatlantic flights with a wide body. The 321LRs and soon XLRs fit a niche that can be a proving ground for 330s on the bigger markets and the LR/XLRs can go to smaller or inaugural destinations like what United and Delta have done to Europe with 757s and 737s (soon to be their own LR/XLRs).

It’s like people are worried about jetblue flying 1-3 flights a day from JFK and BOS to LHR/LGW/AMS/CDG like it’s going to dramatically change what the legacies on both sides of the pond.

hard to believe JetBlue is dropping JFK-ATL/ORD/MIA. They were planning on LGA-ATL.

doulasc wrote:

hard to believe JetBlue is dropping JFK-ATL/ORD/MIA. They were planning on LGA-ATL.

Where are you seeing this being dropped? I see no mention of it. I heard frequency reductions and delaying new routes, but not dropping these cities specifically those 3

Abeam79 wrote:

doulasc wrote:

hard to believe JetBlue is dropping JFK-ATL/ORD/MIA. They were planning on LGA-ATL.

Where are you seeing this being dropped? I see no mention of it. I heard frequency reductions and delaying new routes, but not dropping these cities specifically those 3

I read it on simple flying dot com Jetblue schedule reduced by 2413 flights between June and September. also DCA-JFK is being axed,

cv5880 wrote:

Nope just notating that every time JetBlue wants into a slot controlled airport they throw an absolute tantrum to get their way. Of course UA can;t get into JFK because B6 and AA control the airport. B6 expects to go wherever they want (LHR) for free where the other legacy airlines had to buy their way in. AA bought TWA access, US bought PA access, and DL had to do it through VS. How many months did the AMS tantrum last? Waiting for JetBlue to start crying and hollering for slots into Tokyo Haneda (HND).

I thought that LHR had a rule about new carriers get automatic slots at the airport. Maybe that was an old rule prior to open skies. I remember a slot selling for US$20m or something not too long ago pre-covid of course.

[twoid][/twoid]

doulasc wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

doulasc wrote:

hard to believe JetBlue is dropping JFK-ATL/ORD/MIA. They were planning on LGA-ATL.

Where are you seeing this being dropped? I see no mention of it. I heard frequency reductions and delaying new routes, but not dropping these cities specifically those 3

I read it on simple flying dot com Jetblue schedule reduced by 2413 flights between June and September. also DCA-JFK is being axed,

Sounds like a big scary number until you realize that 2413 flights is about 20 flights a day for an airline that operates 1000.

ctavgeek33 wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

doulasc wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

Where are you seeing this being dropped? I see no mention of it. I heard frequency reductions and delaying new routes, but not dropping these cities specifically those 3

I read it on simple flying dot com Jetblue schedule reduced by 2413 flights between June and September. also DCA-JFK is being axed,

Sounds like a big scary number until you realize that 2413 flights is about 20 flights a day for an airline that operates 1000.

I just read it, it seems like I see where there is a misunderstanding. Ord, atl, Mia have certain frequencies cut back but they are not dropped. I poked on the sched and Mia goes from 4-2/day, atl to 2x/day from 3 and ord to 1 daily from 3. But the markets still will be served and the reduced flying is until sept then they seem to pick up again

tphuang wrote:

https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2023/Hallo-Amsterdam-JetBlue-Flights-from-New-York-and-Boston-to-Amsterdam-on-Sale-Today/default.aspx

JFK-AMS starting on Aug 29th.
BOS-AMS starting on Sep 20th

And this is what the two markets will look like with B6:

- BOS 16:40 - AMS 05:40 DL256 333 daily 7H00M
- BOS 19:10 - AMS 08:00 DL258 333 daily 6H50M
- BOS 20:25 - AMS 09:15 KL618 333 Tue, Wed, Fri, Sun 6H50M
- BOS 20.42 - AMS 09.35 B6032 A32Q daily 6H53M

- AMS 11:30 - BOS 13:35 DL259 333 daily 8H05M
- AMS 11.35 - BOS 13.53 B6031 A32Q daily 8H18M
- AMS 14:50 - BOS 16:55 DL257 333 daily 8H05M
- AMS 17:00 - BOS 18:35 KL617 333 Tue, Wed, Fri, Sun 7H35M

- JFK 16:35 - AMS 05:50 DL46 339 daily 7H15M
- JFK 17:35 - AMS 06:50 KL642 789 daily 7H15M
- JFK 18:35 - AMS 07:55 KL646 772 Mon, Wed, Fri, Sat 7H20M
- JFK 19:30 - AMS 09:15 DL48 333 daily 7H45M
- JFK 21:20 - AMS 10:35 KL644 781 daily 7H15M
- JFK 22.00 - AMS 11.35 B62288 A32Q daily 7H35M

- AMS 10:55 - JFK 13:10 DL47 333 daily 8H15M
- AMS 12:00 - JFK 13:59 DL49 339 daily 7H59M
- AMS 13:25 - JFK 15:25 KL641 789 daily 8H00M
- AMS 13.35 - JFK 16.00 B62289 A32Q daily 8H25M
- AMS 14:35 - JFK 16:35 KL645 772 Mon, Wed, Fri, Sat 8H00M
- AMS 17:15 - JFK 19:15 KL643 781 daily 8H00M

factsonly wrote:

tphuang wrote:

https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-details/2023/Hallo-Amsterdam-JetBlue-Flights-from-New-York-and-Boston-to-Amsterdam-on-Sale-Today/default.aspx

JFK-AMS starting on Aug 29th.
BOS-AMS starting on Sep 20th

And this is what the two markets will look like with B6:

- BOS 16:40 - AMS 05:40 DL256 333 daily 7H00M
- BOS 19:10 - AMS 08:00 DL258 333 daily 6H50M
- BOS 20:25 - AMS 09:15 KL618 333 Tue, Wed, Fri, Sun 6H50M
- BOS 20.42 - AMS 09.35 B6032 A32Q daily 6H53M

- AMS 11:30 - BOS 13:35 DL259 333 daily 8H05M
- AMS 11.35 - BOS 13.53 B6031 A32Q daily 8H18M
- AMS 14:50 - BOS 16:55 DL257 333 daily 8H05M
- AMS 17:00 - BOS 18:35 KL617 333 Tue, Wed, Fri, Sun 7H35M

- JFK 16:35 - AMS 05:50 DL46 339 daily 7H15M
- JFK 17:35 - AMS 06:50 KL642 789 daily 7H15M
- JFK 18:35 - AMS 07:55 KL646 772 Mon, Wed, Fri, Sat 7H20M
- JFK 19:30 - AMS 09:15 DL48 333 daily 7H45M
- JFK 21:20 - AMS 10:35 KL644 781 daily 7H15M
- JFK 22.00 - AMS 11.35 B62288 A32Q daily 7H35M

- AMS 10:55 - JFK 13:10 DL47 333 daily 8H15M
- AMS 12:00 - JFK 13:59 DL49 339 daily 7H59M
- AMS 13:25 - JFK 15:25 KL641 789 daily 8H00M
- AMS 13.35 - JFK 16.00 B62289 A32Q daily 8H25M
- AMS 14:35 - JFK 16:35 KL645 772 Mon, Wed, Fri, Sat 8H00M
- AMS 17:15 - JFK 19:15 KL643 781 daily 8H00M

Those B6 times actually look pretty good.

cv5880 wrote:

Nope just notating that every time JetBlue wants into a slot controlled airport they throw an absolute tantrum to get their way. Of course UA can;t get into JFK because B6 and AA control the airport. B6 expects to go wherever they want (LHR) for free where the other legacy airlines had to buy their way in. AA bought TWA access, US bought PA access, and DL had to do it through VS. How many months did the AMS tantrum last? Waiting for JetBlue to start crying and hollering for slots into Tokyo Haneda (HND).

Why shouldn’t they advocate for themselves? They are aggressive for what they want so what?

SumChristianus wrote:

cv5880 wrote:

Nope just notating that every time JetBlue wants into a slot controlled airport they throw an absolute tantrum to get their way. Of course UA can;t get into JFK because B6 and AA control the airport. B6 expects to go wherever they want (LHR) for free where the other legacy airlines had to buy their way in. AA bought TWA access, US bought PA access, and DL had to do it through VS. How many months did the AMS tantrum last? Waiting for JetBlue to start crying and hollering for slots into Tokyo Haneda (HND).

I wonder why this "strategy" seems to work better for B6 than it does for the legacies. Political connections in the right places from the beginning? Schumer seems to be a big B6 supporter.

And yet the DOT and DOJ said no to the merger?
So connected yet not enough?
No they are a business that will use every tool available to get what they want or think is best for them. We are talking a few flights here not some new hub. Good for JetBlue.

Would JetBlue & it's network benefit by joining one of the big 3 alliances (SkyTeam, Star Alliance, Oneworld)?

MavyWavyATR wrote:

Would JetBlue & it's network benefit by joining one of the big 3 alliances (SkyTeam, Star Alliance, Oneworld)?

B6 would be unlikely to join SkyTeam with the hubs that DL already has at BOS/LGA/JFK/LAX along with most of the B6 nonstop domestic routes out of BOS/LGA/JFK/LAX already having nonstop competition from DL.

B6 also does not currently partner with any airlines in the SkyTeam alliance, whereas B6 currently partners with AA/QR in oneworld and SA/SQ in Star Alliance according to https://www.jetblue.com/airline-partners.

Hey B6, how about MCI-FLL if you are reading this! I have a contract in South Florida for at least the next year and I’m tired of paying $550-$800 on AA and WN. Let’s go!

Found this video to be interesting. It almost seems like the new technology they’ve incorporated into the new-er neo’s coming off the line now would be a perfect fit for JetBlue. Bottom line is they tweaked the 330 neo technology to be as efficient as a 320/321 neo for shorter routes so airlines can upgauge equipment on shorter routes to address skyrocketing demand and a lagging pilot pool and shortage, as well as being efficient on its longer haul. Giving it an edge now with its 787 competitor to use it on shorter lengths to meet passenger demand. This would be great for B6 for nyc-mco/fll/tpa, and even jfk shorter haul Caribbean ie jfk-sju/sdq/kin/nas. They also talk how it’s basically the same cockpit as the 320/321 cockpit to cross Train much easier.

https://youtu.be/9m6civ4LWCY

Abeam79 wrote:

Found this video to be interesting. It almost seems like the new technology they’ve incorporated into the new-er neo’s coming off the line now would be a perfect fit for JetBlue. Bottom line is they tweaked the 330 neo technology to be as efficient as a 320/321 neo for shorter routes so airlines can upgauge equipment on shorter routes to address skyrocketing demand and a lagging pilot pool and shortage, as well as being efficient on its longer haul. Giving it an edge now with its 787 competitor to use it on shorter lengths to meet passenger demand. This would be great for B6 for nyc-mco/fll/tpa, and even jfk shorter haul Caribbean ie jfk-sju/sdq/kin/nas. They also talk how it’s basically the same cockpit as the 320/321 cockpit to cross Train much easier.

https://youtu.be/9m6civ4LWCY

Interesting idea, but given that JetBlue is still trying to phase out one fleet type, the E190, I’m not sure they’re wanting to add another.

Adding a new fleet is more than just training the pilots and flight attendants.

USAirKid wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

Found this video to be interesting. It almost seems like the new technology they’ve incorporated into the new-er neo’s coming off the line now would be a perfect fit for JetBlue. Bottom line is they tweaked the 330 neo technology to be as efficient as a 320/321 neo for shorter routes so airlines can upgauge equipment on shorter routes to address skyrocketing demand and a lagging pilot pool and shortage, as well as being efficient on its longer haul. Giving it an edge now with its 787 competitor to use it on shorter lengths to meet passenger demand. This would be great for B6 for nyc-mco/fll/tpa, and even jfk shorter haul Caribbean ie jfk-sju/sdq/kin/nas. They also talk how it’s basically the same cockpit as the 320/321 cockpit to cross Train much easier.

https://youtu.be/9m6civ4LWCY

Interesting idea, but given that JetBlue is still trying to phase out one fleet type, the E190, I’m not sure they’re wanting to add another.

Adding a new fleet is more than just training the pilots and flight attendants.

The idea of adding the A330 to the fleet mix is premature and doesn’t make sense. B6 does not have enough critical mass in their network yet for an aircraft of this size. Also, if you add the A330 and it’s doing seasonal runs on routes X, Y and Z, in the off season you have to find a new home for it on routes A, B and C. I don’t think there are enough routes to transfer it to in the off season- there would be too much premium capacity on them. JFK-KIN/NAS cannot take an A330- maybe a couple of Caribbean routes on the weekend could handle it, but again that’s a lot of capacity and a lot of premium capacity. To finance a plane like that and park it during a time of year makes no sense either and makes it even more expensive. There are some TA markets that I’m sure can take it, like LHR and CDG, but I don’t see enough routes they could rotate it to in the off season. Their LHR flights have been around for over 6 months now and they are struggling to fill the planes and that’s on an A321. Also, if they order a small fleet of them, that becomes very limiting, especially in the event of a maintenance issue.

I think B6 is taking a very pragmatic approach to the idea of wide-bodies. Once they have the scale and breadth in their network and connections, then I can see them considering it.

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

Found this video to be interesting. It almost seems like the new technology they’ve incorporated into the new-er neo’s coming off the line now would be a perfect fit for JetBlue. Bottom line is they tweaked the 330 neo technology to be as efficient as a 320/321 neo for shorter routes so airlines can upgauge equipment on shorter routes to address skyrocketing demand and a lagging pilot pool and shortage, as well as being efficient on its longer haul. Giving it an edge now with its 787 competitor to use it on shorter lengths to meet passenger demand. This would be great for B6 for nyc-mco/fll/tpa, and even jfk shorter haul Caribbean ie jfk-sju/sdq/kin/nas. They also talk how it’s basically the same cockpit as the 320/321 cockpit to cross Train much easier.

https://youtu.be/9m6civ4LWCY

Interesting idea, but given that JetBlue is still trying to phase out one fleet type, the E190, I’m not sure they’re wanting to add another.

Adding a new fleet is more than just training the pilots and flight attendants.

The idea of adding the A330 to the fleet mix is premature and doesn’t make sense. B6 does not have enough critical mass in their network yet for an aircraft of this size. Also, if you add the A330 and it’s doing seasonal runs on routes X, Y and Z, in the off season you have to find a new home for it on routes A, B and C. I don’t think there are enough routes to transfer it to in the off season- there would be too much premium capacity on them. JFK-KIN/NAS cannot take an A330- maybe a couple of Caribbean routes on the weekend could handle it, but again that’s a lot of capacity and a lot of premium capacity. To finance a plane like that and park it during a time of year makes no sense either and makes it even more expensive. There are some TA markets that I’m sure can take it, like LHR and CDG, but I don’t see enough routes they could rotate it to in the off season. Their LHR flights have been around for over 6 months now and they are struggling to fill the planes and that’s on an A321. Also, if they order a small fleet of them, that becomes very limiting, especially in the event of a maintenance issue.

I think B6 is taking a very pragmatic approach to the idea of wide-bodies. Once they have the scale and breadth in their network and connections, then I can see them considering it.

I agree for the future, i wasn’t really insinuating at the moment, the E190’s will be phased out within 2 years, I’m talking the latter half of the decade going into the next seem likely. Right now of course not really something to jump into. As far as critical mass to support it, I think they’re pretty much there, they had 2.7 billion in revenues last Q1, but again in like 7+ years especially a few years after the closing of the spirit merger and all those synergies will be well in place along with several years n the transatlantic market with the A321LR/XLR they will be the size of what US Airways and Continental were before the merger and they had widebodies. But again, if you watch the video, a big part of this strategy is about pilot shortage and rising passenger demand, it will help with the already beginning pilot shortages, JetBlue isn’t immune to it, especially when it comes to attrition on top of not enough pilots to meet demand. What’s the point of growing if you don’t have enough pilots to fly your 321’s. The wide body only takes 2 pilots to lift passengers as many as 2 A320/321’s. If you can’t hire enough to support 8 flights jfk-fll, but can’t afford to cut back with rising demand, this seems like a solution that would be wise, so you can still supply demand asm’s by reduction in frequency if need be.

Abeam79 wrote:

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Interesting idea, but given that JetBlue is still trying to phase out one fleet type, the E190, I’m not sure they’re wanting to add another.

Adding a new fleet is more than just training the pilots and flight attendants.

The idea of adding the A330 to the fleet mix is premature and doesn’t make sense. B6 does not have enough critical mass in their network yet for an aircraft of this size. Also, if you add the A330 and it’s doing seasonal runs on routes X, Y and Z, in the off season you have to find a new home for it on routes A, B and C. I don’t think there are enough routes to transfer it to in the off season- there would be too much premium capacity on them. JFK-KIN/NAS cannot take an A330- maybe a couple of Caribbean routes on the weekend could handle it, but again that’s a lot of capacity and a lot of premium capacity. To finance a plane like that and park it during a time of year makes no sense either and makes it even more expensive. There are some TA markets that I’m sure can take it, like LHR and CDG, but I don’t see enough routes they could rotate it to in the off season. Their LHR flights have been around for over 6 months now and they are struggling to fill the planes and that’s on an A321. Also, if they order a small fleet of them, that becomes very limiting, especially in the event of a maintenance issue.

I think B6 is taking a very pragmatic approach to the idea of wide-bodies. Once they have the scale and breadth in their network and connections, then I can see them considering it.

I agree for the future, i wasn’t really insinuating at the moment, the E190’s will be phased out within 2 years, I’m talking the latter half of the decade going into the next seem likely. Right now of course not really something to jump into. As far as critical mass to support it, I think they’re pretty much there, they had 2.7 billion in revenues last Q1, but again in like 7+ years especially a few years after the closing of the spirit merger and all those synergies will be well in place along with several years n the transatlantic market with the A321LR/XLR they will be the size of what US Airways and Continental were before the merger and they had widebodies. But again, if you watch the video, a big part of this strategy is about pilot shortage and rising passenger demand, it will help with the already beginning pilot shortages, JetBlue isn’t immune to it, especially when it comes to attrition on top of not enough pilots to meet demand. What’s the point of growing if you don’t have enough pilots to fly your 321’s. The wide body only takes 2 pilots to lift passengers as many as 2 A320/321’s. If you can’t hire enough to support 8 flights jfk-fll, but can’t afford to cut back with rising demand, this seems like a solution that would be wise, so you can still supply demand asm’s by reduction in frequency if need be.

It would also keep junior pilots from leaving since the prospect of flying a wide body is there.

cloudboy wrote:

BitFly wrote:

As far as I know, the ORH-JFK flight is being reduced from 2x daily to 1x daily starting on 06/15, and not being canceled. The 2x daily flight ORH-JFK is back on the schedule 10/29.

Apparently they are cancelling both flights.
https://www.masslive.com/worcester/2023 ... rport.html

I'm not surprised. I know the evening flight back to ORH was notoriously late and this route was a little thank you to Massport for some favors at BOS. While ORH customers will miss out on connections to the West coast and Southeast they can still connect to the Caribbean and South America since MCO service will be daily.

SWF should be so lucky, suspended during the pandemic and still listed on the web site, but flights have never resumed.

December17 wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

The idea of adding the A330 to the fleet mix is premature and doesn’t make sense. B6 does not have enough critical mass in their network yet for an aircraft of this size. Also, if you add the A330 and it’s doing seasonal runs on routes X, Y and Z, in the off season you have to find a new home for it on routes A, B and C. I don’t think there are enough routes to transfer it to in the off season- there would be too much premium capacity on them. JFK-KIN/NAS cannot take an A330- maybe a couple of Caribbean routes on the weekend could handle it, but again that’s a lot of capacity and a lot of premium capacity. To finance a plane like that and park it during a time of year makes no sense either and makes it even more expensive. There are some TA markets that I’m sure can take it, like LHR and CDG, but I don’t see enough routes they could rotate it to in the off season. Their LHR flights have been around for over 6 months now and they are struggling to fill the planes and that’s on an A321. Also, if they order a small fleet of them, that becomes very limiting, especially in the event of a maintenance issue.

I think B6 is taking a very pragmatic approach to the idea of wide-bodies. Once they have the scale and breadth in their network and connections, then I can see them considering it.

I agree for the future, i wasn’t really insinuating at the moment, the E190’s will be phased out within 2 years, I’m talking the latter half of the decade going into the next seem likely. Right now of course not really something to jump into. As far as critical mass to support it, I think they’re pretty much there, they had 2.7 billion in revenues last Q1, but again in like 7+ years especially a few years after the closing of the spirit merger and all those synergies will be well in place along with several years n the transatlantic market with the A321LR/XLR they will be the size of what US Airways and Continental were before the merger and they had widebodies. But again, if you watch the video, a big part of this strategy is about pilot shortage and rising passenger demand, it will help with the already beginning pilot shortages, JetBlue isn’t immune to it, especially when it comes to attrition on top of not enough pilots to meet demand. What’s the point of growing if you don’t have enough pilots to fly your 321’s. The wide body only takes 2 pilots to lift passengers as many as 2 A320/321’s. If you can’t hire enough to support 8 flights jfk-fll, but can’t afford to cut back with rising demand, this seems like a solution that would be wise, so you can still supply demand asm’s by reduction in frequency if need be.

It would also keep junior pilots from leaving since the prospect of flying a wide body is there.

As much as I agree with you on this from a pilot retention standpoint and opportunity to capture new pilots at a higher rate, B6 or any airline for that matter are not going to make a fleet expansion decision, especially choosing to incorporate wide-bodies purely or primarily from this standpoint. At the end of the day, it is going to be driven by financials. While I agree that this will be a decision in the next 5-10 years, I do not agree that B6 has already achieved the breadth in their network or connections and have not reached the critical mass to pack an A330 full. They need more pax, more frequencies and more connections flowing over their focus cities in order to fill a plane that size, and they don’t have it yet. Again, their LON flights have been around for over 6 months and they are struggling to fill low density A321s. With an A330, I think the premium capacity would be the biggest factor- they would have to fill all of those premium seats. If they order A330s and they have 35-40 or more Mint seats, you can run those planes to LHR and CDG perhaps, but not NAS nor LIS. That is going to be a fleet type that is carved out for a very specific market segment. Also, when you introduce a wide-body into the fleet mix, a whole different cost model comes into place- it is much more costly to run a flight with an A330 vs. A321, so you have to pack the flight full, especially up front in order to achieve the delta beyond the cost, and again, I don’t think they have the connection flows to achieve that yet.

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

December17 wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

I agree for the future, i wasn’t really insinuating at the moment, the E190’s will be phased out within 2 years, I’m talking the latter half of the decade going into the next seem likely. Right now of course not really something to jump into. As far as critical mass to support it, I think they’re pretty much there, they had 2.7 billion in revenues last Q1, but again in like 7+ years especially a few years after the closing of the spirit merger and all those synergies will be well in place along with several years n the transatlantic market with the A321LR/XLR they will be the size of what US Airways and Continental were before the merger and they had widebodies. But again, if you watch the video, a big part of this strategy is about pilot shortage and rising passenger demand, it will help with the already beginning pilot shortages, JetBlue isn’t immune to it, especially when it comes to attrition on top of not enough pilots to meet demand. What’s the point of growing if you don’t have enough pilots to fly your 321’s. The wide body only takes 2 pilots to lift passengers as many as 2 A320/321’s. If you can’t hire enough to support 8 flights jfk-fll, but can’t afford to cut back with rising demand, this seems like a solution that would be wise, so you can still supply demand asm’s by reduction in frequency if need be.

It would also keep junior pilots from leaving since the prospect of flying a wide body is there.

As much as I agree with you on this from a pilot retention standpoint and opportunity to capture new pilots at a higher rate, B6 or any airline for that matter are not going to make a fleet expansion decision, especially choosing to incorporate wide-bodies purely or primarily from this standpoint. At the end of the day, it is going to be driven by financials. While I agree that this will be a decision in the next 5-10 years, I do not agree that B6 has already achieved the breadth in their network or connections and have not reached the critical mass to pack an A330 full. They need more pax, more frequencies and more connections flowing over their focus cities in order to fill a plane that size, and they don’t have it yet. Again, their LON flights have been around for over 6 months and they are struggling to fill low density A321s. With an A330, I think the premium capacity would be the biggest factor- they would have to fill all of those premium seats. If they order A330s and they have 35-40 or more Mint seats, you can run those planes to LHR and CDG perhaps, but not NAS nor LIS. That is going to be a fleet type that is carved out for a very specific market segment. Also, when you introduce a wide-body into the fleet mix, a whole different cost model comes into place- it is much more costly to run a flight with an A330 vs. A321, so you have to pack the flight full, especially up front in order to achieve the delta beyond the cost, and again, I don’t think they have the connection flows to achieve that yet.

Where can one find data which say JetBlue are struggling to fill A321s to London? This has not been my experience, nor does it align with the anecdotal data I have been given.

Additionally, why do JetBlue need connection flows for NYC-Europe? There is already a significant amount of premium O&D from New York ripe for JetBlue to pick from the TATL cartels (namely Delta).

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

December17 wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

I agree for the future, i wasn’t really insinuating at the moment, the E190’s will be phased out within 2 years, I’m talking the latter half of the decade going into the next seem likely. Right now of course not really something to jump into. As far as critical mass to support it, I think they’re pretty much there, they had 2.7 billion in revenues last Q1, but again in like 7+ years especially a few years after the closing of the spirit merger and all those synergies will be well in place along with several years n the transatlantic market with the A321LR/XLR they will be the size of what US Airways and Continental were before the merger and they had widebodies. But again, if you watch the video, a big part of this strategy is about pilot shortage and rising passenger demand, it will help with the already beginning pilot shortages, JetBlue isn’t immune to it, especially when it comes to attrition on top of not enough pilots to meet demand. What’s the point of growing if you don’t have enough pilots to fly your 321’s. The wide body only takes 2 pilots to lift passengers as many as 2 A320/321’s. If you can’t hire enough to support 8 flights jfk-fll, but can’t afford to cut back with rising demand, this seems like a solution that would be wise, so you can still supply demand asm’s by reduction in frequency if need be.

It would also keep junior pilots from leaving since the prospect of flying a wide body is there.

As much as I agree with you on this from a pilot retention standpoint and opportunity to capture new pilots at a higher rate, B6 or any airline for that matter are not going to make a fleet expansion decision, especially choosing to incorporate wide-bodies purely or primarily from this standpoint. At the end of the day, it is going to be driven by financials. While I agree that this will be a decision in the next 5-10 years, I do not agree that B6 has already achieved the breadth in their network or connections and have not reached the critical mass to pack an A330 full. They need more pax, more frequencies and more connections flowing over their focus cities in order to fill a plane that size, and they don’t have it yet. Again, their LON flights have been around for over 6 months and they are struggling to fill low density A321s. With an A330, I think the premium capacity would be the biggest factor- they would have to fill all of those premium seats. If they order A330s and they have 35-40 or more Mint seats, you can run those planes to LHR and CDG perhaps, but not NAS nor LIS. That is going to be a fleet type that is carved out for a very specific market segment. Also, when you introduce a wide-body into the fleet mix, a whole different cost model comes into place- it is much more costly to run a flight with an A330 vs. A321, so you have to pack the flight full, especially up front in order to achieve the delta beyond the cost, and again, I don’t think they have the connection flows to achieve that yet.

There are alot of points you make against in relation to cost, as if its not understood, Of course there is cost, but again, at what cost on the revenue side will there be when you can't hire enough pilots for those A320's/A321's that take 1/4-1/2 less than a A330 and continue to buy even more narrowbodies when demand is rising and having to hire double more pilots and then faced with not able to staff a higher narrowbody order book and crew vs a 2 for 1 on a A330, there is also cost NOT to eventually acquire a widebody fleet. But everything incures a cost, history dictates that jetblue certainly isn't opposed to making decisions even tho it may incur a little more costs, IE 2or 3rd fleet type, although it will go bak to 2, Mint configurations, Transatlantic, Etops, etc, your argument is as if they shouldn't do it just cause of the basic price of business. Well, if you can't equip your fleet with the demand, then what kind of business acumen is that?
As far as the London flight, I took it 2x in this year alone and it was over 85% full at least both times, my co worker took United from newark back in mid feb and said the plane was mostly empty, just as all airlines are in that time. I took it during the beginning of spring break and just 2 weeks ago. In fact I had to connect to SFO and the SFO flight had less than half the plane, yet their transcon is overall doing well. It depends on when you go.
next point, various A330 configurations, well thier A320 and A321 have 6 different configurations, 150 all Y, 162 all Y, 200 all Y, 159 Mint 1.0, 160 Mint 2.0, 134 Mint 2.0 transatlantic. Thats just the airbus fleet, then there is A220 with 140. So they can certainly mix configurations on A330 just like every other airlines does to meet demand and shift it as needed across the network. So all your CONS are simply the basic cost, aside the fact the biggest CON not to is exacerbating the pilot shortage, more route cancellations cause they can't staff a slew of A320/321's to meet demand, and like the previous poster said, it will stem attrition for pilots that now see more career oppertunities with a widebody fleet.
Again, I don't see it in the next 5 years, albeit i certainly can at least see a MOU for an order, but several years down the road, I can't see why they wouldn't.

trueblew wrote:

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

December17 wrote:

It would also keep junior pilots from leaving since the prospect of flying a wide body is there.

As much as I agree with you on this from a pilot retention standpoint and opportunity to capture new pilots at a higher rate, B6 or any airline for that matter are not going to make a fleet expansion decision, especially choosing to incorporate wide-bodies purely or primarily from this standpoint. At the end of the day, it is going to be driven by financials. While I agree that this will be a decision in the next 5-10 years, I do not agree that B6 has already achieved the breadth in their network or connections and have not reached the critical mass to pack an A330 full. They need more pax, more frequencies and more connections flowing over their focus cities in order to fill a plane that size, and they don’t have it yet. Again, their LON flights have been around for over 6 months and they are struggling to fill low density A321s. With an A330, I think the premium capacity would be the biggest factor- they would have to fill all of those premium seats. If they order A330s and they have 35-40 or more Mint seats, you can run those planes to LHR and CDG perhaps, but not NAS nor LIS. That is going to be a fleet type that is carved out for a very specific market segment. Also, when you introduce a wide-body into the fleet mix, a whole different cost model comes into place- it is much more costly to run a flight with an A330 vs. A321, so you have to pack the flight full, especially up front in order to achieve the delta beyond the cost, and again, I don’t think they have the connection flows to achieve that yet.

Where can one find data which say JetBlue are struggling to fill A321s to London? This has not been my experience, nor does it align with the anecdotal data I have been given.

Additionally, why do JetBlue need connection flows for NYC-Europe? There is already a significant amount of premium O&D from New York ripe for JetBlue to pick from the TATL cartels (namely Delta).

Look at the international T-100 reports that are out. Their published loads are abysmal. Especially on BOS/JFK-LGW; many of those flights have been operating at under 50% up front; that is terrible. The T-100 numbers speak for themself.

To your second point- they are not leveraging enough connections, in my mind for these flights… this has been discussed further up the thread. Aside from the LON flights not being timed well, especially in BOS, they are dealing with several other factors that have hampered their domestic flight portfolio/frequencies: delays from Airbus, retirement of the E190s, ATC issues, etc. If you look at Aeroroutes, they just cut a bunch of flights during the summer, as did many other airlines in the East. The point is; I commented on them (if you read my post) adding A330s and being able to flow enough connections to fill planes of that size, especially premium seats. At this point, it doesn’t pass the smell test.

Abeam79 wrote:

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

December17 wrote:

It would also keep junior pilots from leaving since the prospect of flying a wide body is there.

As much as I agree with you on this from a pilot retention standpoint and opportunity to capture new pilots at a higher rate, B6 or any airline for that matter are not going to make a fleet expansion decision, especially choosing to incorporate wide-bodies purely or primarily from this standpoint. At the end of the day, it is going to be driven by financials. While I agree that this will be a decision in the next 5-10 years, I do not agree that B6 has already achieved the breadth in their network or connections and have not reached the critical mass to pack an A330 full. They need more pax, more frequencies and more connections flowing over their focus cities in order to fill a plane that size, and they don’t have it yet. Again, their LON flights have been around for over 6 months and they are struggling to fill low density A321s. With an A330, I think the premium capacity would be the biggest factor- they would have to fill all of those premium seats. If they order A330s and they have 35-40 or more Mint seats, you can run those planes to LHR and CDG perhaps, but not NAS nor LIS. That is going to be a fleet type that is carved out for a very specific market segment. Also, when you introduce a wide-body into the fleet mix, a whole different cost model comes into place- it is much more costly to run a flight with an A330 vs. A321, so you have to pack the flight full, especially up front in order to achieve the delta beyond the cost, and again, I don’t think they have the connection flows to achieve that yet.

There are alot of points you make against in relation to cost, as if its not understood, Of course there is cost, but again, at what cost on the revenue side will there be when you can't hire enough pilots for those A320's/A321's that take 1/4-1/2 less than a A330 and continue to buy even more narrowbodies when demand is rising and having to hire double more pilots and then faced with not able to staff a higher narrowbody order book and crew vs a 2 for 1 on a A330, there is also cost NOT to eventually acquire a widebody fleet. But everything incures a cost, history dictates that jetblue certainly isn't opposed to making decisions even tho it may incur a little more costs, IE 2or 3rd fleet type, although it will go bak to 2, Mint configurations, Transatlantic, Etops, etc, your argument is as if they shouldn't do it just cause of the basic price of business. Well, if you can't equip your fleet with the demand, then what kind of business acumen is that?
As far as the London flight, I took it 2x in this year alone and it was over 85% full at least both times, my co worker took United from newark back in mid feb and said the plane was mostly empty, just as all airlines are in that time. I took it during the beginning of spring break and just 2 weeks ago. In fact I had to connect to SFO and the SFO flight had less than half the plane, yet their transcon is overall doing well. It depends on when you go.
next point, various A330 configurations, well thier A320 and A321 have 6 different configurations, 150 all Y, 162 all Y, 200 all Y, 159 Mint 1.0, 160 Mint 2.0, 134 Mint 2.0 transatlantic. Thats just the airbus fleet, then there is A220 with 140. So they can certainly mix configurations on A330 just like every other airlines does to meet demand and shift it as needed across the network. So all your CONS are simply the basic cost, aside the fact the biggest CON not to is exacerbating the pilot shortage, more route cancellations cause they can't staff a slew of A320/321's to meet demand, and like the previous poster said, it will stem attrition for pilots that now see more career oppertunities with a widebody fleet.
Again, I don't see it in the next 5 years, albeit i certainly can at least see a MOU for an order, but several years down the road, I can't see why they wouldn't.

Ok so I think we are in complete agreement on the bottom line factor, but a few things to address: Sure, cost is a real factor that all airlines incur, but an airline with a 100% narrow-body fleet that now incorporates wide-bodies has a real fundamental cost expansion, and that cost is far reaching, as it requires additional FAs, grounds crews, operations and logistics, etc. I think you are glossing over this. Also, what I mentioned several threads up- if they use these aircraft seasonally, they have to send them elsewhere in the off-season. Where are they going to send them? I am not disagreeing that this won’t come to fruition, but as we’ve already discussed and agreed, it’s 5-10 years down the road.

Secondly, with regard to flight loads; your anecdotal evidence is fine, but look at the international T-100 reports. Those are published and out and their loads aren’t great. They have a long way to go, and again that is on a low density A321. They need to sell more seats up front to make these flights more viable, bottom line. Go look at the data.

If they order 10 A330s they aren’t going to have 4 different configurations. They are probably going to have 1- they have almost 100 A321 family aircraft and they are segmented between domestic and international configurations and Mint vs non-Mint; so you’re not really comparing apples to apples, therefore, to have 4 different configurations isn’t unusual given how many aircraft they have and the different market segments they are serving.

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

As much as I agree with you on this from a pilot retention standpoint and opportunity to capture new pilots at a higher rate, B6 or any airline for that matter are not going to make a fleet expansion decision, especially choosing to incorporate wide-bodies purely or primarily from this standpoint. At the end of the day, it is going to be driven by financials. While I agree that this will be a decision in the next 5-10 years, I do not agree that B6 has already achieved the breadth in their network or connections and have not reached the critical mass to pack an A330 full. They need more pax, more frequencies and more connections flowing over their focus cities in order to fill a plane that size, and they don’t have it yet. Again, their LON flights have been around for over 6 months and they are struggling to fill low density A321s. With an A330, I think the premium capacity would be the biggest factor- they would have to fill all of those premium seats. If they order A330s and they have 35-40 or more Mint seats, you can run those planes to LHR and CDG perhaps, but not NAS nor LIS. That is going to be a fleet type that is carved out for a very specific market segment. Also, when you introduce a wide-body into the fleet mix, a whole different cost model comes into place- it is much more costly to run a flight with an A330 vs. A321, so you have to pack the flight full, especially up front in order to achieve the delta beyond the cost, and again, I don’t think they have the connection flows to achieve that yet.

There are alot of points you make against in relation to cost, as if its not understood, Of course there is cost, but again, at what cost on the revenue side will there be when you can't hire enough pilots for those A320's/A321's that take 1/4-1/2 less than a A330 and continue to buy even more narrowbodies when demand is rising and having to hire double more pilots and then faced with not able to staff a higher narrowbody order book and crew vs a 2 for 1 on a A330, there is also cost NOT to eventually acquire a widebody fleet. But everything incures a cost, history dictates that jetblue certainly isn't opposed to making decisions even tho it may incur a little more costs, IE 2or 3rd fleet type, although it will go bak to 2, Mint configurations, Transatlantic, Etops, etc, your argument is as if they shouldn't do it just cause of the basic price of business. Well, if you can't equip your fleet with the demand, then what kind of business acumen is that?
As far as the London flight, I took it 2x in this year alone and it was over 85% full at least both times, my co worker took United from newark back in mid feb and said the plane was mostly empty, just as all airlines are in that time. I took it during the beginning of spring break and just 2 weeks ago. In fact I had to connect to SFO and the SFO flight had less than half the plane, yet their transcon is overall doing well. It depends on when you go.
next point, various A330 configurations, well thier A320 and A321 have 6 different configurations, 150 all Y, 162 all Y, 200 all Y, 159 Mint 1.0, 160 Mint 2.0, 134 Mint 2.0 transatlantic. Thats just the airbus fleet, then there is A220 with 140. So they can certainly mix configurations on A330 just like every other airlines does to meet demand and shift it as needed across the network. So all your CONS are simply the basic cost, aside the fact the biggest CON not to is exacerbating the pilot shortage, more route cancellations cause they can't staff a slew of A320/321's to meet demand, and like the previous poster said, it will stem attrition for pilots that now see more career oppertunities with a widebody fleet.
Again, I don't see it in the next 5 years, albeit i certainly can at least see a MOU for an order, but several years down the road, I can't see why they wouldn't.

Ok so I think we are in complete agreement on the bottom line factor, but a few things to address: Sure, cost is a real factor that all airlines incur, but an airline with a 100% narrow-body fleet that now incorporates wide-bodies has a real fundamental cost expansion, and that cost is far reaching, as it requires additional FAs, grounds crews, operations and logistics, etc. I think you are glossing over this. Also, what I mentioned several threads up- if they use these aircraft seasonally, they have to send them elsewhere in the off-season. Where are they going to send them? I am not disagreeing that this won’t come to fruition, but as we’ve already discussed and agreed, it’s 5-10 years down the road.

Secondly, with regard to flight loads; your anecdotal evidence is fine, but look at the international T-100 reports. Those are published and out and their loads aren’t great. They have a long way to go, and again that is on a low density A321. They need to sell more seats up front to make these flights more viable, bottom line. Go look at the data.

If they order 10 A330s they aren’t going to have 4 different configurations. They are probably going to have 1- they have almost 100 A321 family aircraft and they are segmented between domestic and international configurations and Mint vs non-Mint; so you’re not really comparing apples to apples, therefore, to have 4 different configurations isn’t unusual given how many aircraft they have and the different market segments they are serving.

I get what your saying and its valid, but it seems your constantly glossing what I keep reiterating, Demand and supply! I'm not glossing over the cost factor, I'm actually debating that. You buy 25 A320/321's vs 10 A330's thats double the amount of pilots you have to hire, where are these pilots coming from? Ok yes A330 takes more F/A's but pilots make 4-5x more than F/A's. Paying for more F/A's is much cheaper than paying for more pilots. Thats alot more cost, especially after having to cancel routes cause you can't staff it. Ground crews you still have to hire regardless of a A321 or A330, more aircraft, more ground crew.
They probably won't have 4 different configurations, initially at least, Just like when they first got the A321, and i don't think you seen the video I initially posted, its not like just cause its a widebody it MUST fly only long haul transoceanic. in the winter European demand falls, but they can fly it domestically which is the point initially of the post in regards of new tweaks on the 330NEO's. Especially transcon and high leisure Caribbean, or deep South America where there is opposite seasons and demand to Deep Latin America goes up. This is not a novel concept, every major airline does this with its widebody fleet.
I understand the T-100 data, EU isn't a market that you crack open easily from the get go like JFK-FLL. You have to give it time to Mature. And it will, heck they are telling crews not to non rev this summer cause they expect, like last summer, loads to be booked to full capacity. Its been successful so far. WN loads into hawaii has been pretty low also, but they know its a long term important market for their west coast network. Although all economy into hawaii with all Y class must be tough on yeilds. Also all your points are more valid if they pull the trigger on this now, which I have said many times looking several years down the road. Which is what they even publicly and internally have said.

For some internal news. B6 announced today that they will be opening a mint base for FAs in late 2023. This base has been requested for a long time from the inflight group and it’s nice to see it happening. I personally don’t see really any new routes coming to LA becase of this announcement, all becase of the short supply of mint planes really. I believe B6 is just looking for more efficiency. It would be nice to see 1 or 2 new mint routes though

The “rumor mill Koolaid” has been flowing pretty good with the talk that jetblue has been running performance numbers/simulations for the LR from their data on the London flying that the LR can make it to Rome go missed and land at LON with around 7.0 on fuel.

Also a lot more cities have popped up in our airport guide map that shows cities like:
Oslo
Gothenburg, Sweden
Copenhagen
Hamburg
Frankfurt
Munich
Brussels
Geneva
Barcelona
Madrid
Lisbon.

Also hearing the E190 base in JFK will close later this year and a 220 base will open.

Of course it’s all rumors until the press release.

FlyinRabbit88 wrote:

The “rumor mill Koolaid” has been flowing pretty good with the talk that jetblue has been running performance numbers/simulations for the LR from their data on the London flying that the LR can make it to Rome go missed and land at LON with around 7.0 on fuel.

Also a lot more cities have popped up in our airport guide map that shows cities like:
Oslo
Gothenburg, Sweden
Copenhagen
Hamburg
Frankfurt
Munich
Brussels
Geneva
Barcelona
Madrid
Lisbon.

Also hearing the E190 base in JFK will close later this year and a 220 base will open.

Of course it’s all rumors until the press release.

From a BOS perspective, TP already run BOS-LIS and SK run BOS-CPH on a 321neo so those shouldn’t be an issue for a LR.

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

As much as I agree with you on this from a pilot retention standpoint and opportunity to capture new pilots at a higher rate, B6 or any airline for that matter are not going to make a fleet expansion decision, especially choosing to incorporate wide-bodies purely or primarily from this standpoint. At the end of the day, it is going to be driven by financials. While I agree that this will be a decision in the next 5-10 years, I do not agree that B6 has already achieved the breadth in their network or connections and have not reached the critical mass to pack an A330 full. They need more pax, more frequencies and more connections flowing over their focus cities in order to fill a plane that size, and they don’t have it yet. Again, their LON flights have been around for over 6 months and they are struggling to fill low density A321s. With an A330, I think the premium capacity would be the biggest factor- they would have to fill all of those premium seats. If they order A330s and they have 35-40 or more Mint seats, you can run those planes to LHR and CDG perhaps, but not NAS nor LIS. That is going to be a fleet type that is carved out for a very specific market segment. Also, when you introduce a wide-body into the fleet mix, a whole different cost model comes into place- it is much more costly to run a flight with an A330 vs. A321, so you have to pack the flight full, especially up front in order to achieve the delta beyond the cost, and again, I don’t think they have the connection flows to achieve that yet.

There are alot of points you make against in relation to cost, as if its not understood, Of course there is cost, but again, at what cost on the revenue side will there be when you can't hire enough pilots for those A320's/A321's that take 1/4-1/2 less than a A330 and continue to buy even more narrowbodies when demand is rising and having to hire double more pilots and then faced with not able to staff a higher narrowbody order book and crew vs a 2 for 1 on a A330, there is also cost NOT to eventually acquire a widebody fleet. But everything incures a cost, history dictates that jetblue certainly isn't opposed to making decisions even tho it may incur a little more costs, IE 2or 3rd fleet type, although it will go bak to 2, Mint configurations, Transatlantic, Etops, etc, your argument is as if they shouldn't do it just cause of the basic price of business. Well, if you can't equip your fleet with the demand, then what kind of business acumen is that?
As far as the London flight, I took it 2x in this year alone and it was over 85% full at least both times, my co worker took United from newark back in mid feb and said the plane was mostly empty, just as all airlines are in that time. I took it during the beginning of spring break and just 2 weeks ago. In fact I had to connect to SFO and the SFO flight had less than half the plane, yet their transcon is overall doing well. It depends on when you go.
next point, various A330 configurations, well thier A320 and A321 have 6 different configurations, 150 all Y, 162 all Y, 200 all Y, 159 Mint 1.0, 160 Mint 2.0, 134 Mint 2.0 transatlantic. Thats just the airbus fleet, then there is A220 with 140. So they can certainly mix configurations on A330 just like every other airlines does to meet demand and shift it as needed across the network. So all your CONS are simply the basic cost, aside the fact the biggest CON not to is exacerbating the pilot shortage, more route cancellations cause they can't staff a slew of A320/321's to meet demand, and like the previous poster said, it will stem attrition for pilots that now see more career oppertunities with a widebody fleet.
Again, I don't see it in the next 5 years, albeit i certainly can at least see a MOU for an order, but several years down the road, I can't see why they wouldn't.

Ok so I think we are in complete agreement on the bottom line factor, but a few things to address: Sure, cost is a real factor that all airlines incur, but an airline with a 100% narrow-body fleet that now incorporates wide-bodies has a real fundamental cost expansion, and that cost is far reaching, as it requires additional FAs, grounds crews, operations and logistics, etc. I think you are glossing over this. Also, what I mentioned several threads up- if they use these aircraft seasonally, they have to send them elsewhere in the off-season. Where are they going to send them? I am not disagreeing that this won’t come to fruition, but as we’ve already discussed and agreed, it’s 5-10 years down the road.

Secondly, with regard to flight loads; your anecdotal evidence is fine, but look at the international T-100 reports. Those are published and out and their loads aren’t great. They have a long way to go, and again that is on a low density A321. They need to sell more seats up front to make these flights more viable, bottom line. Go look at the data.

If they order 10 A330s they aren’t going to have 4 different configurations. They are probably going to have 1- they have almost 100 A321 family aircraft and they are segmented between domestic and international configurations and Mint vs non-Mint; so you’re not really comparing apples to apples, therefore, to have 4 different configurations isn’t unusual given how many aircraft they have and the different market segments they are serving.

Based on the T-100's, here's the loads for 2022 for both BOS and JFK to put everything into context, data available up to Oct 22,
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Also hearing the E190 base in JFK will close later this year and a 220 base will open.

Of course it’s all rumors until the press release.[/quote]
I’ve heard the base closure and opening will be April of 24 maybe even further into July. Who knows though with continued aircraft delivery delays.

FlyinRabbit88 wrote:

The “rumor mill Koolaid” has been flowing pretty good with the talk that jetblue has been running performance numbers/simulations for the LR from their data on the London flying that the LR can make it to Rome go missed and land at LON with around 7.0 on fuel.

Also a lot more cities have popped up in our airport guide map that shows cities like:
Oslo
Gothenburg, Sweden
Copenhagen
Hamburg
Frankfurt
Munich
Brussels
Geneva
Barcelona
Madrid
Lisbon.

Also hearing the E190 base in JFK will close later this year and a 220 base will open.

Of course it’s all rumors until the press release.

Getting to Rome isn’t as much of the issue, it’s getting getting back… and I question the credibility of this rumor in the first place as why would you ever have London as an alternate for FCO?

The LR is doing fine but it will never go to FCO from BOS or JFK. The XLR might, with summer winds, but not the LR.

Planeboy17 wrote:

Also hearing the E190 base in JFK will close later this year and a 220 base will open.

Of course it’s all rumors until the press release.

I’ve heard the base closure and opening will be April of 24 maybe even further into July. Who knows though with continued aircraft delivery delays.[/quote]

A220 production is supposed to increase considerably in ‘24 and even more in ‘25, so long as Pratt can get engines to Mobile and Montreal. Still, with airbuses track record of late I can’t see 25+ frames being delivered in ‘24 to jetblue, not unless something happens where an existing customer or 2 pull back their orders.

btw, looks like Jetblue is moving further into a multi-tier loyalty program
https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-detail ... fault.aspx
some people will not like it, but high end spenders normally like having more tiers.

N757ST wrote:

Planeboy17 wrote:

Also hearing the E190 base in JFK will close later this year and a 220 base will open.

Of course it’s all rumors until the press release.

I’ve heard the base closure and opening will be April of 24 maybe even further into July. Who knows though with continued aircraft delivery delays.

A220 production is supposed to increase considerably in ‘24 and even more in ‘25, so long as Pratt can get engines to Mobile and Montreal. Still, with airbuses track record of late I can’t see 25+ frames being delivered in ‘24 to jetblue, not unless something happens where an existing customer or 2 pull back their orders.

I’d expect to see 2024 still a weak year for Airbus on 220 deliveries, not just JB but across the board.

tphuang wrote:

btw, looks like Jetblue is moving further into a multi-tier loyalty program
https://ir.jetblue.com/news/news-detail ... fault.aspx
some people will not like it, but high end spenders normally like having more tiers.

Another step closer to eventually having a full service carrier like product. Based on the Q1 and previous quarters, the ULCC's now are having less margins than the legacy carriers.