JetBlue Latest and Greatest
12-23-2016, 08:21 AM
#2231
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Captain
Posts: 243
Going transatlantic is a huge strategic move. It's a 'make or break' move by the company. The pilot groups flying preferences aren't even on the list of considerations.
JB's management is pretty aggressive and has already ordered the LR. I would wager it's more of a when, not if.
JB's management is pretty aggressive and has already ordered the LR. I would wager it's more of a when, not if.
12-23-2016, 10:46 AM
#2232
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: CA
Posts: 1,220
It'll be the most capable aircraft in the 320 series. Management fell in love with the 321, this plane will give them even more options. The tradeoff of a higher price tag is minimal compared to investing in 330's or 787s....Plus as they've stated it could operate domestically and feed into the system if Europe didn't work. Win Win.
I don't see Europe as a carrot. It is a pretty natural progression for this company really. The Western Europe could be done...right city pairs....little by little it could work.
12-23-2016, 11:14 AM
#2233
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 992
I think it's pretty safe to say that they will. Why wouldn't you?
It'll be the most capable aircraft in the 320 series. Management fell in love with the 321, this plane will give them even more options. The tradeoff of a higher price tag is minimal compared to investing in 330's or 787s....Plus as they've stated it could operate domestically and feed into the system if Europe didn't work. Win Win.
I don't see Europe as a carrot. It is a pretty natural progression for this company really. The Western Europe could be done...right city pairs....little by little it could work.
It'll be the most capable aircraft in the 320 series. Management fell in love with the 321, this plane will give them even more options. The tradeoff of a higher price tag is minimal compared to investing in 330's or 787s....Plus as they've stated it could operate domestically and feed into the system if Europe didn't work. Win Win.
I don't see Europe as a carrot. It is a pretty natural progression for this company really. The Western Europe could be done...right city pairs....little by little it could work.
I think buying the LR would be a mistake. If we're going to go to Europe, do it right. Go big or go home.
12-23-2016, 12:10 PM
#2234
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,005
Because maybe the preliminary info on the LRs aren't living up to promised performance......do we want to stop off in KEF westbound every trip during the winter? Besides, the big $ is the ability to transport cargo when going overseas, which the LR won't be able to do.
I think buying the LR would be a mistake. If we're going to go to Europe, do it right. Go big or go home.
I think buying the LR would be a mistake. If we're going to go to Europe, do it right. Go big or go home.
12-23-2016, 03:59 PM
#2235
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 126
12-23-2016, 06:29 PM
#2237
Guest
Posts: n/a
12-23-2016, 08:19 PM
#2238
facing forward
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: forward facing stick actuator
Posts: 288
The 321 LR performance isn't as planned from what I hear. It could have issues especially west bound. IMO the 330 or 350 makes better sense and also allows much further destination. Not to mention cargo. What I heard back in the day from a NWA guy. The pax are just gravy. The trip and some profit is all from cargo in the belly on long haul.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
12-24-2016, 05:06 AM
#2239
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: CA
Posts: 1,220
From a pilot perspective of course we'd like a 14hr capable plane to fly the 6-8hr flights from the East coast to Western Europe.
I'm not sure how cargo fits into the equation...Especially for narrow body aircraft not capable of fitting containers. Continental (later United) and USAir clearly used narrow bodies to a great extent out of EWR/PHL throughout Ireland/UK/France.
The annoyance of the occasional fuel stop is weighted into any decision. Do you want a plane that needs an occasional fuel stop or one that becomes a huge financial anchor if a region becomes a huge money loser. Well, we have ten A350s ($250million each) and since Europe market is shrinking and Brazil is in a depression we'll be deploying them on JFK-MCO.
I'm not sure how cargo fits into the equation...Especially for narrow body aircraft not capable of fitting containers. Continental (later United) and USAir clearly used narrow bodies to a great extent out of EWR/PHL throughout Ireland/UK/France.
The annoyance of the occasional fuel stop is weighted into any decision. Do you want a plane that needs an occasional fuel stop or one that becomes a huge financial anchor if a region becomes a huge money loser. Well, we have ten A350s ($250million each) and since Europe market is shrinking and Brazil is in a depression we'll be deploying them on JFK-MCO.
12-24-2016, 06:52 AM
#2240
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 992
The 321 LR performance isn't as planned from what I hear. It could have issues especially west bound. IMO the 330 or 350 makes better sense and also allows much further destination. Not to mention cargo. What I heard back in the day from a NWA guy. The pax are just gravy. The trip and some profit is all from cargo in the belly on long haul.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You didn't read too many of the most recent entries on this thread before you decided to post, did ya?
Nice to see confirmation from other places too though.....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
