Is the 319 an option for Jetblue?

[lowecur]

I think so, but the question is do they have that option with Airbus? They need an a/c in the middle between the 320 and 190. 130 seat 319 would fit the bill. It would serve two purposes, depending how much they need to readjust their business model. First they need to stagnate capacity growth on the 320 side, and second they need an aircraft that has better range than the 320 for transcons. Continue to sell about 25% of the 320s in the next few years and substitute them with 319s.

imp:

 

[737 Pylt]

I think so, but the question is do they have that option with Airbus? They need an a/c in the middle between the 320 and 190. 130 seat 319 would fit the bill. It would serve two purposes, depending how much they need to readjust their business model. First they need to stagnate capacity growth on the 320 side, and second they need an aircraft that has better range than the 320 for transcons. Continue to sell about 25% of the 320s in the next few years and substitute them with 319s.

imp:

Just wondering why JB didn't use the A318 instead of the 190?? If any JB guys can chime in.....It would seem a better fit with the Airbus fleet!
737

 

[a320drivr]

The 319 costs to much to operate compared to the 190. It weighs more, burns more fuel, was about 10 mil per copy more, to big for some of the markets we want to get in to, etc.

 

[wndshr]

Just wondering why JB didn't use the A318 instead of the 190?? If any JB guys can chime in.....It would seem a better fit with the Airbus fleet!
737

funny you shoud ask! according to some "higher ups" when the 318 came out they thought it was just a marketing gimmick. they never really thought it would work, so they went with the very first person that would build a 100 seater. they didn't care about price, range, economics, part commonality (although emb assured JB they would use interchangeable parts to the 320!).

so......now that the 318 is actually a REALITY, it just may be too late to get one.

 

[GVFlyer]

Just wondering why JB didn't use the A318 instead of the 190?? If any JB guys can chime in.....It would seem a better fit with the Airbus fleet!

737

Maybe they used the same logic USAir used when they bought the Mini-Bus. They were offered the A319 at $24 million with it's much cheaper seat mile costs, and the Embraer at $17 million. As you know they bought the Jungle Jet.

I think for both airlines the Airbus would have been a better choice. Go figure.


GV

 

[Truckdriver]

The cost to operate a 319 is probably almost exactly what it costs to operate a 320. It's the same airplane only smaller. With less seats you have a higher CASM. The cost to operate a 190 is probably much less than the cost to operate a 319. With the same number of seats as a 319 you get a lower CASM. CASM is what matters in this biz and I would probably bet that the savings they gain in operating a 190 vs. a 318 is greater than sticking with all buses or they would never have went with the 190.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

I think so, but the question is do they have that option with Airbus? They need an a/c in the middle between the 320 and 190. 130 seat 319 would fit the bill. It would serve two purposes, depending how much they need to readjust their business model. First they need to stagnate capacity growth on the 320 side, and second they need an aircraft that has better range than the 320 for transcons. Continue to sell about 25% of the 320s in the next few years and substitute them with 319s.

imp:

As an employee of Jetblue's competitor, I would love JetBlue to sell A320's and buy A319s in a couple of years. This would be about the time SWA signs an agreement to buy the next generation 737 based on the 787. The older technology 319 would be left in the dirt.

You've heard about the 787/A350 boondoggle, right??

 

[IronCityBlue]

equip. choices

As an employee of Jetblue's competitor, I would love JetBlue to sell A320's and buy A319s in a couple of years. This would be about the time SWA signs an agreement to buy the next generation 737 based on the 787. The older technology 319 would be left in the dirt.

You've heard about the 787/A350 boondoggle, right??

Although we're not competitors (yet) I see where you're coming from. For what its worth, Dave told me we are not married to Airbus in any way whatsoever and cockpit commonality is not a big enough advantage compared to a superior airframe (econonically speaking...read fuel efficiency) and he specifically said 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.

On the original topic of 318 v/s 190 as it was explained to me, the 190 (not including its rough start up record, which is significantly improved) is economically superior to the 318 in every way other than a few weeks of pilot training and of course parts inventory. But in this day and age, stocking parts is chicken scratch compared to the fuel bill and the 190 is far more efficient than the 318. Its also significantly cheaper per copy which almost completely makes up for the transition in the near term.

The 318 is basically a 319 with less seats. Very little advantage whatsoever today, and significant dissadvantages for the future in terms of financing and operating costs. If fuel were 20 bucks a barrel the 318 would probably have been a better choice, but with each increase the 190 becomes a wiser and wiser choice. Not to mention I'm 82% sure the 318 only comes with the CF engines, so that would reduce the commonality somewhat anyway parts wise.

 

[lowecur]

As an employee of Jetblue's competitor, I would love JetBlue to sell A320's and buy A319s in a couple of years. This would be about the time SWA signs an agreement to buy the next generation 737 based on the 787. The older technology 319 would be left in the dirt.

You've heard about the 787/A350 boondoggle, right??

First of all, I don't see a 737HT being available till 2012 or later, so the idea of near term replacements of 319s for 320 makes more sense. Airbus is working on an HT replacement for the 320 series as we speak, and it's my guess will have it ready to go before Boeing. I don't see them making the same mistake they made with the 350 using the same structural/wing/tail design as the 330.

imp:

 

[Fox-Tree]

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.

 

[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.