did jetblue ever consider the airbus 318?

[climbhappy]

if they did, how did the 190 ,aside from a huge price discount vs the 318, make more sense given the one type rating, maintenance costs, training costs, etc?

do they regret it?

would their numbers on wall st. look better or have a better forecast gong forward?
thanks in advace.

 

[furlough-boy]

nope, never considered it. In fact, they didn't even know it existed until one of the exec's saw a picture of one in a magazine a few months ago. I bet they felt pretty stupid.

 

[JBFlyer]

nope, never considered it. In fact, they didn't even know it existed until one of the exec's saw a picture of one in a magazine a few months ago. I bet they felt pretty stupid.

Even though I do not know the answer, I'm interested in how you are aware of this tidbit. I find it hard to believe that, as an Airbus customer, JetBlue would have been unaware of the fact that 318's existed. When a company looks for a new airframe, I'm sure all options would be examined.

 

[h2oskier]

JBFlyer,

I have to believe that furlough-boy had his "tongue in cheek" with that response! Evidently the deal was so good from Embraer that it offset the savings of a single type and associated training and maintainence costs. Anyway that's the story I heard and I'm sticking to it.

 

[BLUE BAYOU]

If we didn't even consider the 319, why would we consider the 318. The E-190 was a great deal financially. You don't think a Morman who did missionary work in Brazil (David Neeleman) could strike a beneficial deal for both Jetblue and Embraer? Additionally, the growth that is planned for this airline in the next few years will require numerous deliveries that an overbooked Airbus ledger could not handle. And I know this'll get a flame bait, if you went with the 318, you'd likely have to pay the typed guys/gals the same pay rate that the 320s have-- which would make the 100-seat jet too expensive to operate...hmmm..

 

[robert_fla]

I asked them that @ the interview back in June 04'. Right after the decision on the 190 was made. They said that the 318 was a shorter 320, but it had the same heavy landing gear and componets needed in the 320. So, in the long run it would cost more to opperate.
No idea how accurate that is, but what I was told,

r

 

[Dogwood]

I asked them that @ the interview back in June 04'. Right after the decision on the 190 was made. They said that the 318 was a shorter 320, but it had the same heavy landing gear and componets needed in the 320. So, in the long run it would cost more to opperate.
No idea how accurate that is, but what I was told,

r

I asked the same question to Al Spain in the "Safe Room", and his answer was that the 318 was not truely a 100 seater, where the 190 was.

I'm sure the other part of the answer was the crew pay, but that was not discussed, as you might guess.

 

[lowecur]

Lol


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: .......

imp:

 

[Ski-N-Fly]

It's simple, really. The A318 just looks too stubby. The 190 is more sleek and the winglets look cool.

 

[JBFlyer]

JBFlyer,

I have to believe that furlough-boy had his "tongue in cheek" with that response! Evidently the deal was so good from Embraer that it offset the savings of a single type and associated training and maintainence costs. Anyway that's the story I heard and I'm sticking to it.

Probably right about the "tongue in cheek" comment. Sitting reserve has dulled my senses.