Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > JetBlue
JetBlue Latest and Greatest >

JetBlue Latest and Greatest

Search
Notices

JetBlue Latest and Greatest

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-09-2020, 02:43 PM
  #8881  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Left
Posts: 1,807
Default

LAX would be a perfect market for the A220 (for the non-transcon routes). With its low operational break even, the A220 would make sense on those competitive routes (i.e., Seattle, SFO and Austin).
David Puddy is offline  
Old 07-09-2020, 02:56 PM
  #8882  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 537
Default

Originally Posted by David Puddy View Post
LAX would be a perfect market for the A220 (for the non-transcon routes). With its low operational break even, the A220 would make sense on those competitive routes (i.e., Seattle, SFO and Austin).
A220 would have been a good plane for LGB. Quiet, more NIMBY friendly, less capacity, etc. Maybe Breeze will go to LGB and give them a try there. But for B6 I don’t see LAX getting a 220 base quite yet. I’d guess BOS & JFK 190 would be replaced first. Who knows tho, the Rona is causing a lot of changes. I’d bet one day the 220 will have a west coast base. I just think LAX base, even at 70 flights a day if it gets there in 2025, will still be too small to justify 2 crew bases there.
copy is offline  
Old 07-09-2020, 03:49 PM
  #8883  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Speedbird2263's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 705
Default

Originally Posted by copy View Post
A220 would have been a good plane for LGB. Quiet, more NIMBY friendly, less capacity, etc. Maybe Breeze will go to LGB and give them a try there. But for B6 I don’t see LAX getting a 220 base quite yet. I’d guess BOS & JFK 190 would be replaced first. Who knows tho, the Rona is causing a lot of changes. I’d bet one day the 220 will have a west coast base. I just think LAX base, even at 70 flights a day if it gets there in 2025, will still be too small to justify 2 crew bases there.
I wasn't here then, but it's my understanding that we had the E190 routing through the west coast without having a 190 West Coast base and it was the 190's reliability or lack thereof that killed that operation. The same strategy may be done with the A220, it has transcon range and is also comfortable doing relatively short hops.
Speedbird2263 is offline  
Old 07-09-2020, 04:06 PM
  #8884  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 537
Default

Originally Posted by Speedbird2263 View Post
I wasn't here then, but it's my understanding that we had the E190 routing through the west coast without having a 190 West Coast base and it was the 190's reliability or lack thereof that killed that operation. The same strategy may be done with the A220, it has transcon range and is also comfortable doing relatively short hops.
Yeah it normally went via AUS iirc. And I was told they tried to fly it from like SLC-IAD and some other long weird routes on occasion...didn’t work out well. Also no dedicated mx on the west coast. Recipe for disaster. If they had made it an actual base and had parts stock and people who knew how to work on the 190 it could have been much better. But going forward they can’t half a$$ a base. If they ever do it, they need reserves, maintenance, and enough tails co-located in the system to absorb disruptions. Especially with a new plane. That’s why I don’t expect it to happen with the 220 until we have a large number of them. I would expect the 220 to do transcons fairly quickly though on some of the thin routes (RNO, ABQ, PDX, etc).
copy is offline  
Old 07-09-2020, 04:48 PM
  #8885  
Gets Weekends Off
 
GuppyPuppy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: JetRight, JetLeft
Posts: 760
Default

Originally Posted by copy View Post
Yeah it normally went via AUS iirc. And I was told they tried to fly it from like SLC-IAD and some other long weird routes on occasion...didn’t work out well. Also no dedicated mx on the west coast. Recipe for disaster. If they had made it an actual base and had parts stock and people who knew how to work on the 190 it could have been much better. But going forward they can’t half a$$ a base. If they ever do it, they need reserves, maintenance, and enough tails co-located in the system to absorb disruptions. Especially with a new plane. That’s why I don’t expect it to happen with the 220 until we have a large number of them. I would expect the 220 to do transcons fairly quickly though on some of the thin routes (RNO, ABQ, PDX, etc).
Mostl trips went through AUS. We did fly the 190 LGB-ORD for a while. The SLC flights were to/from JFK. DEN-JFK too.
I think the lack of spare parts and lack of crew coverage is why the 190 got axed from the west coast stuff. Sick/emergency call in the middle of a trip meant the spare 320 would go fly that day.

Gup
GuppyPuppy is offline  
Old 07-09-2020, 05:30 PM
  #8886  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CaptCoolHand's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: Left,Right, Left, Right,Right,Left, Right, Left
Posts: 3,150
Default

Originally Posted by Speedbird2263 View Post
I wasn't here then, but it's my understanding that we had the E190 routing through the west coast without having a 190 West Coast base and it was the 190's reliability or lack thereof that killed that operation. The same strategy may be done with the A220, it has transcon range and is also comfortable doing relatively short hops.
the problem with the 190 out west was there was no support. If you timed out or a plane broke it took two days to fix it. We spent more time waiting for crews and parts than we did actually flying out west in the 190.

right! Exactly what gup said.
CaptCoolHand is offline  
Old 07-09-2020, 05:39 PM
  #8887  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Speedbird2263's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 705
Default

Originally Posted by CaptCoolHand View Post
the problem with the 190 out west was there was no support. If you timed out or a plane broke it took two days to fix it. We spent more time waiting for crews and parts than we did actually flying out west in the 190.

right! Exactly what gup said.
Ahh ok that makes a lot more sense looking at it from a complete support view. Will be interesting to see how they deploy the 220 going forward.
Speedbird2263 is offline  
Old 07-10-2020, 03:12 AM
  #8888  
The REAL Bluedriver
 
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,881
Default

My opinion is there are more things coming. Most likely additional JFK slots and A220 delivery acceleration. The additional A220s could come from Breeze and or DL, as Flyby's research shows.

Still won't rule out an AA codeshare either.

Just my opinion.
Bluedriver is offline  
Old 07-10-2020, 04:17 AM
  #8889  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CaptCoolHand's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: Left,Right, Left, Right,Right,Left, Right, Left
Posts: 3,150
Default

Originally Posted by Bluedriver View Post
My opinion is there are more things coming. Most likely additional JFK slots and A220 delivery acceleration. The additional A220s could come from Breeze and or DL, as Flyby's research shows.

Still won't rule out an AA codeshare either.

Just my opinion.
To be clear, closing LGB and opening LAX are management decisions—and are unrelated to the recently signed Letter of Agreement for furlough protection
Id say there’s definitely more coming.
CaptCoolHand is offline  
Old 07-10-2020, 04:38 AM
  #8890  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,002
Default

Last I heard, the 190 plan as a 1:1 replacement with the A220 remains unchanged. Get rid of the policy of leaving a seat open, and now you have a bunch of 190s sitting around already paid for. Subject to change of course.
nuball5 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Zoomie
Major
36
01-28-2015 11:44 AM
iahflyr
Major
27
09-30-2014 09:04 AM
Mason32
Regional
270
07-27-2010 06:01 PM
Scott34567
Regional
39
05-29-2008 07:08 PM
Sir James
Major
0
07-29-2005 07:02 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices