Is the 319 an option for Jetblue?

[IronCityBlue]

319 v/s 320

Some selectively placed 319s would help out for sure. They could use some 319s for their winter transcons - then they wouldn't have to land short in DEN or somewhere else when their 320s can't hack the winter jet.

The problem with that is twofold. Putting 319's into the system in advance means shorting loads by approx 30 pax all winter long just to hedge against the few days a year you actually have to make fuel stops. If you use that subfleet to cover for the rare days you have to make fuel stops, you'll have to bump up to 30 people.

Besides how much longer range does the 319 have? Do you have to get the ACT to make it longer range than the 320? There may be a few transcon markets that are thin enough year round to justify 319 service if it had significantly better range, but getting the 319 purely as headwind insurance doens't seem to add up. Especially if the acquisition and operating costs are almost identical, but the 319 having a higher CASM all the time.

 

[lowecur]

The problem with that is twofold. Putting 319's into the system in advance means shorting loads by approx 30 pax all winter long just to hedge against the few days a year you actually have to make fuel stops. The typical config for the 319 would be 134 pax compared to 156 for the 320. If you use that subfleet to cover for the rare days you have to make fuel stops, you'll have to bump up to 30 people. I think Jetblue is seeing significantly lower LFs since better yield mgt is sending the bottom feeders to other carriers. The 319 would give Jetblue choices as many of their routes will thin out due to the new yield mgt policies.

Besides how much longer range does the 319 have? The 319 has a range of 3700nm to 3000 for the 320. Do you have to get the ACT to make it longer range than the 320? There may be a few transcon markets that are thin enough year round to justify 319 service if it had significantly better range, but getting the 319 purely as headwind insurance doens't seem to add up. I think they limit pax loads in Burbank due to the short runway already. Especially if the acquisition and operating costs are almost identical, but the 319 having a higher CASM all the time.

The 319 is more in line with SWA's 737NG as far as performance and configuration. It just may be a wise choice for about 25% of the 320 fleet.

imp:

 

[mosdef]

Burbank is capped at 150 +/- a few depending on winds, # of kids, bags etc.

 

[JetFumes]

You guys are forgetting that a plan is in the works to put larger, blended winglets on the 320. It is supposed to give the airplane a 5% increase in range and climb performance. This will help with the tech stops and the load situation out of Burbank. It will also help conserve fuel on normal day to days ops.

 

[:-)]

Hey Lowecur, how many shares of Airbii do you own?

 

[lowecur]

Hey Lowecur, how many shares of Airbii do you own?

Hey Calvin, how many Chers of Sonny are still left? Answer: Just the Buffalo Vest he was buried in.

imp:

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

You guys are forgetting that a plan is in the works to put larger, blended winglets on the 320. It is supposed to give the airplane a 5% increase in range and climb performance.

Don't count on more than 2-3%. That's how much they got out of the 737NG winglets.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

IF Boeing built the 787 version of the 737 and IF it had efficiencies on scale that the 787 is advertized to have compared to similar gauge aircraft, we would absolutely get it.

With the massive growth going on in India, China and other places even with a new new gen 737 we most likely wouldn't have much of a problem unloading Busses of any "age" or hours on the world market at prices that would make the transition no more painful than SWA's. A couple extra weeks of pilot training is just not that big of a deal, especially compared to a potential 20 something percent fuel efficiency advantage going forward.

Are you really discounting the value of sticking with the Airbus theme at JetBlue?

Maybe I'm overestimating the value of less time spent in training for crewmembers and the value of training expenses spread across more of the same type of airplane.

But I think you underestimate the cost of switching airframes like you propose. We need to ask Frontier and Alaska how much it cost them to do that.

If you do it slowly, then you have 3 fleet types with lots of training department staff and an overworked (or overstaffed) scheduling department. It would take some serious coin to work the transition

 

[UALjan15]

I guess Boeing will never be free to "start clean" with the 737 as long as SWA is filling in their order books. I am certainly curious how close they can get to the efficiencies of the 787 while being handcuffed to a '60s basic design. From the reading I have done on the 787, its systems are radically different from even the 777. If the NG 737 followed this design, it would be tough to get the FAA to accept simple "differences training."

IMHO, Boeing has too much at stake globally to mess up the 737 replacement, and they need to start with a clean sheet of paper (or a blank CAD screen, more likely). SWA will still buy it, and they'll figure out a way to get guys trained on it.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

I guess Boeing will never be free to "start clean" with the 737 as long as SWA is filling in their order books. I am certainly curious how close they can get to the efficiencies of the 787 while being handcuffed to a '60s basic design. From the reading I have done on the 787, its systems are radically different from even the 777. If the NG 737 followed this design, it would be tough to get the FAA to accept simple "differences training."

The 737 based on the 787 might be the first "new" aircraft training program for SWA. If it shares a common type with the 787 it would set SWA up for international routes with the 787. I guess the 787 wouldn't share a common type with the 777.

On the other hand.....Is the MD-10 really that similar to MD-11 in systems?? What about the 757 and 767? I'm thinking its not that easy to shift your landing picture with these two. There already seems to be enough difference between the -300 and -700 to make the commonality mainly just size and switch position.

I've never flown the Bus or 757 and don't know how badly Boeing is handcuffing themselves with the 737 philosophy. But they've made it work well so far. The airplane does the job well and has good economics. Can't be expensive now to keep the pilot interface in the same style, can it?

I read awhile back that SWA was consulted on the cockpit design on the 787.

I figure SWA's switch to the newer 737 will happen after The Battle of Bratwurst in 2014.